We have talked and talked about the immediate requirement of rugby. The Minister had set a cut-off date to dissolve the Interim. The Director General of Sports Development has been directed to conduct the elections in terms of the Sports Law. The Director General of Sports Development confirmed that the notice will be sent and the annual general meeting will be held. At one time it looked as though there will be a slip between the cup and the lip. The Director General was confronted with the need to give specific notice as required by the law under which he is acting. That is the Sports Law. The issue of the IRB cutting us off will be the concern of somebody who has passion for the game. Then for somebody who is expected to carry out a job as required by law it mat y not be in his agenda.

I spoke to Mr. B.D Dahanayake the Director General of Sports Development regarding the holding of the AGM. I realized he had a passion for sports though it may not have been rugby in particular. He was not going to be rigid and go by the book. He talked from a practical point. He empathized with the need for rugby to be in the International scene. He talked of what is good for the country. A possible way out is for the constituent bodies to submit individual letters to the competent authority expressing their willingness to accept shorter notice he explained. The Director General emphasized that what is being done is in good faith and to keep the game alive. A lesson for those who adorned office and to whom petty issues and confrontation was more important. Thus it seemed the continuance of being accepted by the International body seems possible.

CEO Gunaratne in the midst of a controversy

If we are cut off from the international rugby community it is just not the funding that we may forfeit but also forfeit the right to be participants. If we are cut off by the governing body getting back will not be an easy task. It will take some time. Then at which level in Asian rugby will we get back to.

Why are we facing these issues and a situation of the future of rugby being in danger? The blame as I was told was with the Interim committee whose main task was to facilitate holding of the AGM. It is they who knew the deadline and they knew of the notice required, they should have discussed with the Ministry and got the authority. As per Sports Law an interim body cannot hold elections. It has to be the Ministry of Sports. How come those who quote the Sports Law at the drop of a hat seemed unaware?

The CEO Lasitha Gunaratne however said that they had brought these requirements to the notice of the Ministry. If we go back in time and look at the functioning of the interim you would notice that they forgot the bigger picture.

Mostly involved with petty squabbles or furthering their desire to keep some in and some out depending on whose face it was. The conclusion of some is that Rugby is now in disarray due to the lack of professionalism, independence and proper administration. The apex body in Sri Lanka who should be held responsible for the awful depth to which issues have dropped was an opinion.

There is again a conflict on issues of referees with ARFU appointing two Sri Lankans to officiate in the Asian circuit. It appears a vilifying message was sent damning individual referees to whom ARFU offered international assignments. The CEO confirmed that the Interim Committee decided not to accept these appointments as the two referees had done only two matches each. The measure is from the date the SLRFU took to its hands to appoint referees. The referees however claim that they have done many matches during the season when the society was functioning. Around twenty matches as against the two claimed by the Union.

Lasitha the CEO explained that it was discussed with the Interim Committee and they felt it was not fair by those who refereed the domestic matches at the tail end of the season. The issue with me is whether you take the opportunity to give exposure to the selected referees or go on giving a chance. These appointments are not given to the country but are merit based to the individual. When rejected it does not mean another will be appointed. There again we lose opportunities.

With the season about to get into full gear and close competition expected, can rugby afford to keep away the senior experienced referees? There has been open criticism and expression of concern of the non availability of knowledgeable referees. Following the final of the Schools Rugby Sevens a player was injured as a result of a dangerous tackle. This issue is now highlighted and publicized where competence is questioned. Schools are voicing their concern and fear it could lead to a dangerous situation. Before things get out of hand and to those who will do anything to get a game or appoint someone to a game despite capabilities I reproduce the following from the Liverpool Law Review.

“In sport recognition of certain dangers of injury is steadily imposing rule changes, with consequential efforts on the referee’s supervisory functions. In Rugby Union for example, scrum collapses are about as welcome as doping in athletics. If let us say three scrum collapses occur without incident or penalty and a player is made paraplegic the fourth time, it is a valid question to ask whether the referee has failed to discharge a duty of care”.

It is not about getting your pound of flesh but about seeing that others will not lose their pound of flesh but playing a game is what has to be foremost.

Vimal Perera is a former Rugby Referee, coach and Accredited Referees Evaluator IRB