In water logged CR and FC grounds, a crowd of about 5000 witnessed new comers to the A5N Sri Lanka battle United Arab Emirates XV in their top division rugby encounter.
The rains poured on Saturday the 23rd and upset plans for, Sri Lanka, a team that trained and planned on dry ground and on conditions that would have favoured Sri Lanka’s fast back division. Sri Lanka would have remained among the first five nations if they beat UAE. This was not to be and the game was deadlocked at 13 all. The game turned out to be less than exciting for two teams, among the best five in Asia. UAE played in bits and pieces but never looked a winning combination.
Sri Lanka scored twice when their back division made good ground. Victory was not theirs as they missed two penalties within kicking range when the scores stood level at 13 all. Probably the nerves made it more difficult to put points on the board from kicks within range taken by two different players.
There was little cohesion, structure or continuity and frequent breakdowns was the order .The game was a kicking exercise from one side of the field to another. It was football with an oval ball as the ball was put to boot 70 times. The football spectacle was complete with antics to manufacture a penalty. The Lanka back division looked dangerous the few times when they ran. Yet they t could not do wonders when the ground conditions were not the best for running. Sri Lanka played rugby that was adequate to win the game; but they could not. The team lives to fight another day, left to meet Hong Kong Kazakhstan and Japan. What would make them stay is winning a match from what they are left to play or bonus points if UAE as well as Sri Lanka don’t record a win.
The match itself though not reaching dizzy heights had its moments of excitement as the scores swung at different times. Then came the moment, where, all thought was Sri Lanka moment of history. That was when Costa dived closer to the goal line. The moment of jubilation turned to a groan as the referee did not rule a score. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since the game and thoughts of the referee assisted by the Assistant Referee made a mistake has been talked of and published. The A5N official website has posted the highlights and also commented that the assistant referee was right in his call and there was no try scored. The tournament director for ARFU has conveyed that the highlights posted on the A5N site clearly indicate that the AR2 Nimal made an exact correct call to disallow a try. The decision is and was made on field and should stay there for the betterment of the game and as we plan for what is next.
 |
| A fraction of a second before the disallowed try. Did airborne Costa really score a try? (Picture by Sanka Vidanagama) |
What is important is that the referee made a call on what he saw at a particular time and without a replay. The highlight posted on the A5N is a head on pick and causes a doubt as against the real time that was shown form an angle from behind. Some who have been involved in coaching whose emotional reaction immediately after the incident as well as the match was to groan loud that there was a try? On second thoughts after reviewing the highlights that have been posted they too talk in terms of a doubt.
Questions that raise doubts was that the grounding of the ball was short and the player lost control. Another may argue that the ball was out of his hand but the upper body was in control of the ball. The referee or the Assistant referee does not have the luxury of that analysis at the time he makes that split second decision. The issue be an experience in learning.
It is jumping to conclusions when emotionally charged that leads to the bad taste that lead to provocation. The decision that is made at the moment is also reflected in commenting on what you see and what your gut reaction is. That is what acts faster and not the logical process of the brain analyzing and giving a cue on what you say.
When a penalty was awarded for a late and dangerous tackle the referee asked what do you want a penalty here or there. The immediate reaction was scrum because what came to the players mind immediately was the law on man in front of a kicker. Similarly the broadcaster wonders aloud why a penalty here or there only to be told it should be penalty here or scrum there by his colleague. It was not that he did not know but it was the immediate reaction which brings another law to the front. See the broadcast again and listen. It is the penalty that was fluffed. Then again officials who are supposed to know should also be careful in commenting on the spur of the moment. People do believe them and quote them because they are supposed to know.
Vimal Perera is a former Rugby Referee, coach and Accredited Referees Evaluator IRB
|
E-mail
