‘Teaching’ schoolboy Ruggerites sidestep/break laws
View(s):Most would remember the bandied lyrics of the baila, “Kussi Amma Sera was in love with one Perera, and the home people didn’t know what to do”, which came to mind as I settled myself at the Royal Complex, waiting for the whistle, to watch the much hyped match. The tragicomedy unfolded before the game started, and spread to the game.
After 17 minutes of play of the Royal-Patahana encounter, the match was stopped for 8 minutes with issues about the bench with Isipathana protesting against a 'Trainee Physio' sent into the field by Royal (right pic) - Pix by M.A. Pushpakumara
After 17 minutes of play, the match was stopped for 8 minutes with issues about the bench. The schools section decided post Wesley-Trinity match fiasco that, among those who can enter the field are the Physio and the 3 schoolboy-water-carriers, who have to be from among the 50 players declared or registered. The Match Commissioner (MC) was somewhat confused, as a document supposed to be written by the Union, was given to him clarifying the qualification of a Physio. Probably, a clarification was in place, as various people including assistant coaches, sit in as a Physio and are a danger to player welfare.
In the confusion, the MC called him a Trainee Physio. The question was not about a part qualification but, a maneuvering of the regulation, to have a guy on the far side, under the guise of being a trainee, thus allowing an additional person. This clarification, if any, should have been to the school section, so that, it applied to all. Any application should have been to all schools and not a reply to an individual school, one may fancy. In World Rugby, any clarification has to be addressed to them by the National Body, and then the decision is communicated to all, so that, transparency is maintained. This was settled on the basis it will be 1 Physio and 3 water carriers, while even a far side runner will have to be within this 4. This contingent is generally named in the declaration sheet. It follows therefore, that, if you are not named, you cannot be there.
As the game went past 15 minutes, it transpired that, those sitting on the Isipathana bench were old boys including junior coaches. A similar issue arose before the commencement of the St. Joseph’s-Isipathana match too. When the issue was pointed out, the argument was that, the Royal bench too had old boys. It was Tolstoy who made a comment which is more apt within the Rugby Society of today. “Everybody wants to change the world but nobody wants to change themselves”.
Incidentally, the talk was that, those sitting were not who started and were declared. The referee being informed by the substitution officials that, they are not willing to listen and adhere and were refusing to comply with the match officials who manage the technical zone.
The match was stopped, but the MC found it difficult, as the Masters-in-Charge permitted within the playing enclosure, could not help. It appeared that the decision was to be in the hands of the coaches and the old boys committee. The referee did not wish to start the game and also be pressurised. Neither was he willing to allow his team to be under pressure. The last call was still his and, as per the law book, he could have removed all from the playing enclosure. That extreme was what was to be avoided, while he stood firm. Those involved then retreated and it was found that both schools had erred. This was like in “Kussi Amma Sera”. The home people did not know what to do. The schools’ authorities including the staff seemed powerless. An Old Royalist, a sporting personality of the past, commented, “People must understand that this is a game between schoolboys and what has to done or, is being done, should be an example”.
Talking of what has to be done, the issue of using a handheld transceiver, popularly known as a “walkie-talkie”, came up during the Wesley-Zahira match. Again it was a Physio who handed the communication equipment to a player during an injury breakdown, so that, the coach could talk to him. The result was a yellow card to the player and a warning to the Physio. One may argue that the law only mentions about players not being allowed to have communication earpieces. This argument must be tested, as the expectation is what is important and not circumventing the law by using another devise.
Why do people want to dodge the law and/or regulations to an illegal advantage, when it is Schools Rugby? Often, you find the attempt at an additional official on the far side, after declaring 3 water carriers, hoping the official on the other side will not notice. I remember a vigilant substitution official stopping the engagement once before at a match. Yet, this continues in different forms, as the man on the far side, at most times, carries a communication set.
These sideshows spoil the circus in which an important act was the Royal-Isipathana game. The much awaited clash fired the supporters to a high temperature. Pathana were home, 22-17 winners. Despite the willingness to run and pass the ball in front of a large crowd, mistakes on both sides were heavy. I noticed a few times when Pathana did not engage after a tackle, but came through and picked up, there was a hue and cry from spectators as well as coaches. Despite the much talked about England-Italy match, there seems to be a lack of understanding of the laws.
Vimal Perera is a former Rugby Referee, coach and Accredited Referees Evaluator IRB