How come others cannot do it?
View(s):Price of entrance tickets and missed conversions, and post red card decisions, referees at junior matches dominated rugby talk last week. Schools Rugby draws crowds that keep the game alive. Does this mean that fans will pay whatever is asked for entrance?
The talking point was the charge of one thousand rupees for the Thomian vs Trinity match. One could argue that there were tickets priced at two hundred rupees too. People may argue for and against the amount charged on the basis that it is too high. The barometer will be the attendance and whether they will continue to pay whatever the price asked.
The old boys of two schools Trinity and S. Thomas’ probably would patronize the game because of the affiliation they have. The problem if any will arise if this same charge will continue when the Mount school take on the others. It is no secret that schools spend a lot for rugby and covering these costs are important. The spectator is an important factor of the game and should not be priced out. More specifically supporters of your opponents have to be part of the equation. Place kicking by Isipathana is a major worry of their supporters. An early lead of 10 points to nil would have been stretched to a secure comfort zone if the three penalties and conversions were put over by Pathana. Joes were given the opportunity to get closer and level scores at 10 all early in the second half. The penalties and one conversion were within easy range. Not to be outdone Joes too missed penalties that were within range.
This is a problem that has an effect not only on the school but has an impact on national rugby. Pathana can for all purposes consider they were lucky in winning this match as Joes dropped the ball at critical times and made a wrong decision that gave the opponents a score and victory. Given a free kick inside their 22, the Joes opted for a scrum and lost the ball and Isipthana 
made use of the opportunity. Just as much as the kicking is a worry when players of two top teams charge a penalty kick at goal the question of knowledge props up . Given another kick and ten meters in front I could not understand Pathana asking for a kick at goal when simple kicks were missed. Did anybody notice a penalty try being awarded? Most knowledgeable who are continuously educating referees on laws missed it.
Though the score line was a wide gap the Trinity-Thomas’ match provided good rugby and t was only that Trinity was much superior and will be a serious challenger to the league. Royal the other team at the top in this group had to fight hard to beat Dharmaraja who were somewhat effective in defending the rolling maul.
Much has been said about the red card inquiry where the disciplinary committee did not proceed with further sanctions. This is discussed wrong in that an opinion is circulated that the decision of the referee was overturned. Probably the reason could be the way the decision was conveyed. A sent off popularly known as a red card is always followed by a disciplinary/judicial inquiry. At this stage further sanctions can be imposed or the decision the referee left as it was. There can be mitigating reasons put forward by the offender as well as other considerations that a disciplinary body will look at when deciding on further sanctions. It is and has been a practice at all levels of rugby whether it is schools, clubs national or international rugby. The cardinal fact that the referee is the sole judge of fact and law still remains as there is no overturn but a consideration on further sanctions.
The school section has been putting in place systems to control the movement of persons within the playing enclosure. One such control is the number of persons and who can sit on the bench. I notice that with most teams this has become an issue to argue with the substitution control official who is initially in charge of managing the enclosure. Various arguments are put across and confrontation follows. Whatever ambiguity that might exist in the application of tournament rules the referee becomes the man who is the man in charge of the enclosure. The substitution official carries out duties on behalf of the referee. If you keep arguing all that can happen is for the referee can use his discretion and direct persons and or persons to leave the enclosure. This is something teams will have to keep in mind. It is also left for the team management to be truthful in declaring names based on eligibility.
Interestingly there are many referees in the pavilion and are vociferous to being vulgar and intimidating in making remarks but there are few takers to at least referee the under 12 and below matches. The interim committee of referees decided that no referees will be provided for junior friendly games. The hope was that young school boys and or schools leavers will consider refereeing as a path to be in the game, so that a young referee of say 17 years can make it to the higher grades in 5 to 6 years. Most schools who cry fouls use either a coach who is nearing 40 to do this job. This in any way will not contribute to introducing newcomers to referee. One school that has done well is Royal who have three boys who not only referee their matches but also provides their services to other schools. How come others cannot do it?