Trinity pales into insignificance
View(s):The shock defeat of table leaders Trinity at the hands of bottom star St. Joseph’s College paled into insignificance with the surprise walk off of Royal in their match against Isipathana College.
Rugby is taking the headline not for the great quality of the game but more for what happens to bring the game into disrepute. These include abuse of referees, ground invasion, assault and the latest, abandoning a match.
The question in the mind of many is, “what next for Royal?” The Royal-Pathana game for the Major Milroy Fernando Trophy has never been a docile affair in the past. It has been a hot contest always but never has it been a torchbearer for violence. While many anecdotal comments are made to support ungentlemanly play the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
The Royal-Isipathana game for the Major Mailroy Fernando Trophy has never been a docile affair in the past. - Pic by Amila Gamage
Let us hope that Royal will walk the talk and provide the hard evidence to support and or justify the walkout. Let them make certain that the alleged offences are proved and not allowed to fizzle out. Many claimed that they had evidence to prove referee bias after the crowd invasion during last year’s Royal-Trinity first leg match.
The so-called evidence was never produced while the incident has been swept away. I hope at the end, the issues will not be recorded as AJP or KJP (ankle joint pain or knee joint pain) and the treatment is to apply a crepe bandage.
What intrigue me are the other surrounding issues that have sprung up like mushroom. The abandoning of the match poses issues that can lead to many arguable problems in the future. The relevant clause of the tournament rules posted on SLSRFA website read as follows:
9. Match Abandonment.
9.1. If a team refuses to play or abandons a match in progress without the prior consent of the referee, that team will score no match points and its opponent will be given five match points as winner of the match. The team declared winner will keep its score for and will have no points scored against.
9.2. The team declared loser will keep its points scored against and will have no points scored for. The Disciplinary Committee will decide upon the further participation of the refusing / abandoning team in the tournament and/or other relevant or related matters.
It is not about Pathana getting five points or about Royal not getting their points, it is about the other major complication or implications that may arise. The wording of the tournament rules if manipulated can deny or hand over victory by adding a point or denying a point.
All you have to do is to walk out by consensus and better still tell the referee and then it will be a match stopped by the referee where a different rule applies. It is a bad precedence and can lead to horrendous follow-ups when used by the wrong hands. The tournament rules – it must be accepted – cannot cover every comma and full stop. The game is what has to be considered. Then you have to fall back to the regulations under whose guidance rugby is played. That is the IRB and use the clause bringing the game into disrepute. Disrepute cannot be denied in the act of abandoning a game in the presence of a large crowd the issue again is the school section willing to use the IRB regulations.
Getting back to the game, the issue appears to be thrown at the referees feet now. Let me leave the alleged safety issues and look at the decision just before play was abandoned.
The pivotal moment was the referee asking for a restart when one captain was not on board. What led to the walkout and powwow with the coaches was that a player was felled by a Green. The player felled was around the 22. The referee in the meantime was way inside the 22 following the drop goal and could have not seen the incident. After speaking to his assistants he decided to continue with play.
The captain then came back and was in the centre and was about to take the kick and suddenly walked towards the 15 meter mark and kicked the ball out while the referee was asking to resume play. This was defiance and a penalty was awarded.
The issue for the referee was to get the game back in control and he has the option of talking to the captain or going to the team where the coaches too were involved. That may not have been the best option as there was a possibility of being embroiled in a conflict. Particularly because a number of coaching staff were seen shouting at the referee and making football-like actions.
Then the option was to penalize though this may not have been the best. Once the referee had awarded a penalty kick and made a mark, given the circumstances, the try was inevitable and stands as a score. Take the case of a similar incident where when a penalty is given the other side does not engage or disengages in a maul. The question is not so much whether the try award was legal, but whether awarding the PK and making the mark was – in the circumstances – the best way forward. That is what the referee thought and in the circumstances the better decision. It probably could be reviewed for posterity by the wise men. However, without having a full look at the incident some have apparently commented publicly that the try should be withdrawn. I do not subscribe to that view as one cannot look from a squint eye as the referee made the mark for the penalty and there were some players on the field and with or without the decision of the referee stands, I hope they do not make a mockery of the issue by declaring another null and void and add more load to the officials, who are already burdened.
Vimal Perera is a former Rugby Referee, coach and
Accredited Referees Evaluator IRB
Follow @timesonlinelk
comments powered by Disqus