The Wavering Whistler – The Shape Theory
View(s):
Referees were active at a Pathana match in the first round
Sri Lankan rugby referees have again suffered from the physical assault on a fellow official. This time the referee missed a sad and serious incident as a supporter of the visiting team ‘Isipathana’ wrapped around the referee. The story looks like a page from Grimm’s Fairy Tales. Particularly; so when the defender is from the park school who recently had to face the wrath of the referees for the unruly behaviour of one of its spectators. Believe it or not some of the spectators have and affinity for referees.
The referee concerned was Dinka Peiris who also happens to be the Secretary of the Referees’ Society. The match was the second round fixture between Kingswood College and Isipathana played at Nittawela; Isipathana won by 10 points to 5. The senior referee escaped the missiles fired but the spectator a rugby member of the visiting school had to undergo medical attention and the wound on his head had to be sutured. The referee loving spectator is an ex-serviceman who used his skills and experience to protect the VIP. What followed thereafter raises a question of gratitude to somebody who saved the day.
The match was over and the referee was walking out of the grounds in the company of some old boys of the host team pseudo security ring as seen in the last drop of the broadcast. The referee was confronted by angry spectators as he moved through the tunnel. Apparently the supporters not happy with the official and particularly the last decision decided to have a go at the referee, they began to and immediately hit the referee throwing bottles and missiles. In the melee the supporter who came to protect the referee received injuries to his head as a missile intended to the referee stuck him. What transpired subsequently when inquired reveals a lot about character of a number is actors.
The Sunday Times understands the problems were created by a supporter of the aggrieved team, only to be debunked by the referee manager, Anil Jayasinghe. Whereas the host school MIC in their defense tried to project that the problem was caused by the Park School supporter.
The referee struggled to remain and walked out and subsequent action suggest that the trauma has directed him to make a vague statement which mentions the incident but thanks the hosts for providing security and support. Extend the on field foundation of rugby laws ‘Referee is the Sole Judge of Law and Fact’, then what is more important is what the referee has penned and not what Jayasignhe says was the view of a schools official.
The protocol and the guidelines require the host team to be responsible for security. Was that adequately provided and how is that spectators were able to throw things at the referee this is not about one referee but an issue for the whole fraternity. Interestingly what hit he protector was a chunk of ice. Who has ice and where did this come from?
This is most interesting and important as the Vice President of the Rugby Union said that this is not a sanctioned tournament and the Referees’ Society stand as individuals supporting schools rugby. This then requires more vigilance and protection from the organisers who should get participants to get in line. When asked about the incident the schools official said that they have done their best and have to go by the referees report which said that the provision of security was adequate and also that there was no problem on the field. The point is redundant as this is not about an incident on the field but arising off the field. The responsibility of the home team is not limited to protecting a referee on the field but also includes the tunnel and the passage as well as changing room and until he leaves the ground. More so if referees and provided to keep school rugby going and there is a risk through a tournament that has not been sanctioned there should be a greater appreciation as they keep the game going. Supporters of schools argue that they spend a lot of money. What if the referees did not referee because as the SLR says this is not sanctioned? That is where better leadership comes in without the ‘shape theory’ practiced.
Another issue pointed out by the Vice President of SLR was that some schools resort to fielding players outside the age window. There will be a real problem if one of those outside the age window is injured and as this is not a sanctioned event there can arise a strong liability issue. The schools should be made responsible for fielding the right players and the Match Commissioner should cross out any who is outside the window. Asked on the responsibility of the referee the President of the Referees’ Society explained that they have written to the organisers that the responsibility lies with the school and the verification is with the organiser acting through the Match Commissioner.
Another side dish that is being talked of is the death of two visiting rugby players form Durham in the United Kingdom. The SLR has given a no objection for these friendly matches. The incident is not related to a on field issue but what happened after the game and much on the social circuit. On the other hand it is the social circuit that is talking about the incident. True that it may be a off field incident but the word in all by lines that is common is ‘Rugby’. The irony is that when an issue props up everybody will point questions to the Union. An example given by Gunaratne, the VP was “when an issue arose on the eligibility of a player to play for Sri Lanka arose World Rugby asked the Union and anybody else”.
So in this case also the questions will be directed to the Union.
Vimal Perera is a former Rugby Referee, Coach and an Accredited Referees’ Evaluator IRB