The ‘shape theory’ and modern day Lankan rugby
View(s):
Writing in a popular blog, Charitha Ratwatte, a former heavyweight in politics and a Ministry Secretary, developed an argument based on the ‘Shape Theory’ or what can be called the ‘Shape Niyaya’.
The ‘shape theory’ has been seen in clubs in the past years when you look at the selective treatment in the case of red cards, gun-toting ground invasions and complaints as well as requests for imported officials.
Explaining the theory he said, “It would be useful at this stage to consider what exactly is meant by the word ‘shape’ in this context. The dictionary meaning is, ‘to mould or make into a particular form; to give shape to, to figure; to devise; to assume a form or definite pattern, form figure, outline, pattern, mould, condition.’ This dictionary definition does not reflect adequately what was meant by saying that, in effect ‘things are shaped for our people.’ There is a concept called ‘shape niyaya’ which can be accurately described as one known uniquely to the hybrid language that is called ‘Singlish’ – a potent mixture of English, Sinhala and Tamil slang. A ‘niyaya’ in Sinhala is a doctrine, policy or principle. ‘Shape Niyaya’ is a policy which involves taking the line of least resistance, and resolving a matter in dispute, without causing harm to any party involved in the transaction, though the law may be grossly violated.”
A snippet in a gossip column had a reference to a mail on the comments made by an official on the action taken against a match official on the complaint of a participating club. When you sit back and think of what was said in trying to satisfy as implied it is obvious that the ‘Shape Theory’ is very much in play in rugby. The fear expressed by some is whether this path of least resistance will invade the playing field? The premise in the concept about not “causing harm to any party” does not seem applicable as the action can happily be to the liking of some but to the detriment of others.
If this thinking takes root in rugby, or for that matter in any sport, the effects will be more detrimental than the path of least resistance and short term success. The vulnerable will be the referees, who if cornered to practise the ‘niyaya’, can initially cause ripples that will gather to become a major storm. The recent insistence of action on a complaint made against two senior officials is proof that even at this stage the path of least resistance is not being taken. The officials involved should understand and accept the greater good that will be done to the game than being dumped for action in the ‘shape’ bin.
The shape bin is taking shape although it is not visible in the game, whether it is club, school or mercantile rugby. The shape theory has been seen in clubs in the past years when you look at the selective treatment in the case of red cards, gun-toting ground invasions and complaints as well as requests for imported officials.
We have seen crowd invasions and the bias action in disciplinary rule application in the schools as well as the liberal interpretation of eligibility and protests that are handled depending on who’s who in Mercantile Rugby.
A senior official and past great on the field has often asked the question as to why referees fight shy to abandon matches when there is an invasion or abuse from within the playing enclosure. As an example; if the match was called off when the crowd invaded the field in a prestigious match the effect would have been more than the” shape” up that followed.
Another nauseating issue was the Vidyartha fiasco, which if handled correctly would have not reached the damaging heights it reached. The suspension and subsequent mitigated punishment smacked of shape. This shaping is now leading possibly to another court case. A similar problem is there with the removal of the suspension of a player who was given a red card but was released on the basis of mistaken identity. DS Senanayake has still not given up the fight and continues to claim that it is another shaping. Probably following the governing body that has conditioned itself in the improper meaning of the word shape. The schools section too is conditioned to claim that the referee was wrong in” shaping” things. Somebody has to take a stronger decision to avoid chaos.
Selective action as well as carefully-planted information will only damage the game though the short term objective is met. Take the case of the published statement, “D. Nimal fails fitness test as SLRFU stands firm.” If Nimal is not to be nominated to the ARFU panel or his suspension is not to be lifted that is the prerogative of the S LRFU and there is no question about that provided it is not a part of the shape theory. Also publicity of the failure without being read with all factors of the guidelines will not only damage Nimal but all referees and the game as well. The people may wonder whether all referees in Sri Lanka achieve this fitness. If not there will be criticism. The guidelines below are for an IRB level 3 referee and also followed by Asia which has given a margin last year.
IRB ‘L 3 Beep requirement’: Minimum 0f 10.8 for females and 11.7 for males. These levels are 10.45 (females) and10.00 for males on the 2.4 km run – although the values may vary with the age and weight of individuals. Anyone under 32 should look to meet these levels, especially if they aspire to be on the ARFU A Panel to referee at High Performance – National Representative Team – level.
Nimal being around 40 the 0.40 seconds above the10.00 minute is not much to worry about as the guidelines suggest.
We are at the beginning of another year and the Provinces, the Schools, Clubs as well as referees will see a changing of the guard or the continuation of the guard. It is important that there is no room for ‘shape, shape’.
Vimal Perera is a former Rugby Referee, coach and Accredited Referees Evaluator IRB
Follow @timesonlinelk
comments powered by Disqus