Royal retain Schools Rugby League Crown
View(s):
Royal College became the only school to remain unbeaten throughout the run for the League title - Pic by M.A. Pushpakumara
It is very unfortunate that Martis was attacked after the match. Verbally abused and followed with a strike. This added a spat of dung to the cup of victory. While the boys played in the true spirit and the dedicated coaching staff provided the environment for healthy competition, it is sad when past pupils spoil all the good work. This mars the good work and spells a ring of doubt as to what transpired after the Royal-Wesley match. The act is purely one of a vagrant. It must be remembered that the host school is responsible for the safety of match officials as well as officials and players of the visiting team. It is now left to the school to take action. Going through the tournament manual, one will note that this too, comes within the purview of neglect. Pictures on social media show the culprit, while others show him been taken away by the Police. It is an act of somebody who does not have values. It was Martis who brought the Bradby back after 4 years and retained it for another 3 years, and also steered to win the League in 2015 and 2017. What is at stake is the spirit, hope and pride of Rugby. It is like the odd feeling when sitting on the toilet eating a chocolate.
Looking back at the Rugby, it was not just the last match that Royal excelled. Other than in their matches against Wesley and St. Joseph’s, Royal were always ahead. A solid neck ahead in beating the rest.The competition during the Schools League was high and the attendance very encouraging. But, if violence continues, there is always a chance of spectator avoidance .
The spectator who confronted Sanath Martis, being escorted out
People try to blame the Schools Rugby Organisers for the spate of ugly spectator behaviour, during and after matches. At all instances reported, it was the old boys that spoiled the pot and not the players. This is at a time when the Ministry of Education has included Rugby among the core sports, and has allocated a fair funding to develop this sport. In the last few weeks, it was the Referees who were attacked. With the spread to a coach and also allegedly, to a player, by third parties, it now requires a re-look for reasons which have to be nipped. When Rugby is brought to the curricula and teachers are being trained to spread the game, misconduct off the field will only lead to ask a question? Why should Rugby be encouraged. The inability to rein in the culprits who cannot get along with others, is symptomatic of the dearth of Rugby spirit and sophistication on their part.
When problems arose, people began to say it was the frustration triggered by the non-acceptance of Referees’ decisions that caused unruly spectator behaviour. But the incident involving the altercation with the former Royal and present St.Peter’s coach requires deeper understanding. This leads to asking a question whether this is part of a culture that cannot accept defeat.
The reason is the inability to comprehend, as one does not see beyond their nose, and are guided by anecdotes. These resulted in aspersions cast on Referee appointments. A result of perception than actual. We heard many a voice complaining that Referees X and Y were appointed to matches played by St. Peter’s or Royal. Each school played 9 matches during the season. That is 5 in Round 1 and 4 in the Cup Stage. The pattern of Assignments were Dinka Peiris (4) Rohan 
Fernando (4) and Hasantha Weranga (5), refereeing Royal, Joe’s and Pete’s matches respectively. Aaqil Jamaldeen has refereed 2 each of Pete’s, Joes, Kingswood and Pathana matches, while Weranga and Priya Suranga also refereed 3 of Trinity matches each. These assignments need to be reconciled with reality. Fernando does not referee Pete’s, as his son is studying there, and Jamaldeen does not referee Royal matches, as he is an old boy. Do your permutations and combinations and you will understand the agony in making appointments.
This is in no way an attempt to justify Referees who are doing well within their capabilities. If not for them, who will be in the middle. We distribute opinion on the possibility of touching a line. But what about the try that was creeping, as against two movements to reach the line. Again, what about the rights to the ball after a tackle, but before the ruck is formed or, the offside where fringing by both backs and forwards is common. The problem is when you see only one side of the mistakes.
Last not least, news is that, Royal will not play the Knockout (KO). Time to read the Tournament Manual on opting out of the KO. But who will bell the cat?