I would have normally thought that the issues regarding the events of the Kandy versus Air Force match should have been left to be sorted out by the parties concerned. In this country memories being short it is forgotten in a short time. I would have tought it should not take space in this column every week. Reading the article “Let Facts Talk” written by Bryan Baptist the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee I thought I should write something about this particularly as he has noted a sentence from this column.
Sad to say: Bryan a rugby personality who I have great respect for seems to have jumped the gun and indulged in somewhat of a nonsensical statement. I really am at a loss to understand why the chairman of a disciplinary committee wants to explain himself to the public and ask the reader to decide.
From the terms of the IRB regulations the disciplinary committee is judicial committee. Is it ethical and or acceptable norm for a judicial committee to solicit such public sympathy or support? If this action enhances the integrity and improves the confidence of the rugby public in the disciplinary committee it is well and good. Regulations in the IRB states “No member of a Disciplinary Committee or a Judicial Officer or member of an Appeal Committee or Appeal Officer should comment to the media on a decision of those bodies but the Chairman of either may release a copy of that decision to the media when it is available; or if a full written decision is not immediately available, release to the media a brief resume of that decision”. I suppose we are expected to believe that this statement is the decision released to the media.
 The simplicity of the argument in defining the playing area to ask the reader to judge is unrealistic What purpose does it serve to say that “the referee’s report did not indicate the incident as well as that if there was a gun brought into the field the referee would have given a red card”? Is this explanation to make the reader believe that it is only what that is against the laws of the game that matter? In addition to the laws of the game that cover acts within the playing enclosure there are also regulations of the IRB which cover other areas. Even the acts of foul play covered under the laws of the game are inquired and sanctions issued under the regulations. The SLRFU constitution as well as the tournament rules expressly accepts the regulations of the IRB. Has this article from the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee opened another can of worms?
At one point of the regulation 17 the IRB talks of actions of misconduct on and off the field can be inquired. Therefore drawing a line and talking about being on field as well as stressing on nuances such as one shot and not two shots as well as whether it was on field or off field are only worthy for arguments sake. The more important is to look at how this impacts the game.
There is an another area in the regulations that this incident may come under: (a) bringing the Board or the Game or any Person into disrepute; (b) engaged in conduct, behavior or practice(s) which may be prejudicial to the interests of the Board or of the Game; (c) disclosed any confidential information obtained through connection with the Game; or (d) breached the Code of Conduct. Explained further a judiciary can be appointed for an alleged breach or breaches of above as well as disciplinary matters arising out of illegal and foul play or such other matters as the Council, Chairman of the Judicial Panel or CEO may from time to time refer to a Judicial Officer or Judicial Committee for adjudication. The inquiries under the laws of the game which mainly cover on field is one area of concern under the IRB regulations. The SLRFU too has sated so in its constitution.
Procedures Relating to a Breach of the Regulations or Bye-Laws, or Offences under Regulation 18.1.1 leads to another corner. “Quote” A Union or Association must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, investigate each and every alleged breach of the Regulations occurring or committed within or relating to its jurisdiction and of which it has knowledge. Following such investigation, it shall take such action as is appropriate and thereafter report its decision and the procedures adapted to the CEO in writing within 28 days of its decision. In the event of the Council and/or CEO not being satisfied with the procedures adopted and/or decision reached by a Union or Association pursuant to Regulation 18.4.1 or in the event of a failure to investigate by that Union or Association, then the Council and/or CEO may refer the matter, via the Judicial Panel Chairman, or his designee to a Judicial Officer or Judicial Committee or take such other action as it deems appropriate. “Unquote”.
The union being bound by the regulations the clubs or body affiliated to the union too are bound by the regulation.
By his own admission in the article that an Air Force person fired a shot and that it was confirmed by the Air Force has Baptist opened another flank for attack and inquiry based on knowledge that there may be a breach of regulations.
Vimal Perera is a former Rugby Referee, coach and Accredited Referees Evaluator IRB
|
E-mail
