If Wesley was penalised, same should be for the opponents
View(s):
It was a case of English professional Rugby players not knowing the offside law and assumed there was one at the tackle. Which player in well coached mini-rugby ought to know about? If the English did not know this how would be in our backyard. There has been much discussion about the tactic Italy used of “no ruck” no offside at tackle. The Italians did the tactic quite successfully as the English appeared to not know. The lack of law made this tactic indefensible. If you knew the law it should have been you pick and go, and keep doing so until a ruck is formed; or you reach the try line, whichever comes first. It does not seem a rocket science to counter this move. You see players at home too going to the referee asking questions which should be treated as ignorance than a show of knowledge.
Couple of them including coaches as well as those involved in current school rugby seemed to think this is not right. World Rugby has already communicated that the referee was right. This is nothing new as it was done sporadically before and more often in Sevens. When James Haskell approaches and asks the Referee “Just for clarity, on the ruck, what do we need to do for it to be a ruck?” Poite in a witty reply says “I can’t say I am the referee, I’m not a coach.” Food for thought when local referees say something like that it is supposed be because they are arrogant. The storm and the times it was done by Italy is what made this sensational. Novelty is over and it will be old hack. In reality it is a much tiring and strenuous for a referee who has to see that players are back when a ruck is formed.
Surprise, surprise -- the opening week of the Singer Schools League was eventful
The Trinity vs Wesley game saw a try fiesta with the Lions scoring eleven tries. Wesley scored four tries in a match where Trinity showed that they could handle and run the ball. A match where you saw schoolboys play better rugby was marred in the last minute brawl. The Wesley player I think was reckless in the way he went in to the player after the try was scored. However there was no need for the try scorer to be physical with the man who dished the unwanted tackle. Similarly the need for the Trinity player who was third man in had no business to get involved. A good game played in good spirits ended in a way it should not have. I would think a red early in the season would have sent a message to those who want to take the law unto their hands. A harsher punishment should have been due to the Wesley bench and coaching staff that went into the field making a mess of what would have been a normal rugby match issue. It was indeed good to see the Trinity bench not getting into the field but the same cannot be said of the support staff.
A tight season is ahead and the schools authorities should take note and even deny the staff of being on the bench for at least one match. Yet in my view a red for retaliation and third man in would have put things in greater perspective. News is that the Wesley player has been given a stiff ban. This is a little awkward when you read the World Rugby sanction guide for foul play which indicates a maximum of 52 weeks with a lower end of 2 weeks. The retaliation and the third man getting involved deserves the same at least or harsher punishment. If one could punish one player despite their being no red card same should have been applied to the others and used citing to take action. Trinity I believe is a talented side that can give the spectators their money’s worth but need to curb their impetuosity to err as in the case of the involvement in the brawl.
The schools section has taken action in the aspect of game management particularly the additional staff that is in the playing enclosure. This is an area that is much misused with the support coach staff masquerading as a water-boy or a physiotherapist. People who are not trained to attend to injuries are set there for a different purpose can do more harm to the players and in considering the emphasis on player welfare.
The game between St. Peter’s and St. Anthony’s Kandy was an interesting affair that saw Peters’ wining by a mere two-points margin. Isipathana too were stretched by Dharmaraja in a rain affected match while S. Thomas’ smashed minnow’s Prince of Wales.
The game that should have been between Royal and the Joes turned out to be less than the expected hammer and thong affair as Royal took an early lead and went into the last ten minutes leading 28 points to 5. The Joes came back strong and scored three tries but Royal took the game by 28 points to 22. Royal played to a plan and underestimated the opponents thinking they were in a comfort zone and did more changes. Joes on the other hand failed as they did not plan and play to their strength but showed what can be done in the last few minutes. The penalty count is an issue they will have to address along with the conversions which would have drawn the game. Newcomers to Division 1 Rugby Zahira beat Science College at Ratmalana. The season is in the first week and leaders Pathana, Royal and Petes have won the games while in Segment B S. Thomas’ and Trinity are there but Science have lost their first game.
Vimal Perera is a former Rugby Referee, coach and Accredited Referees Evaluator IRBÂ Â