Administration of the game

The local rugby scene was abuzz with the incidents at the RC/Pathana game, with many allegations and counter allegations. The fact that this was a hot topic is indicative of the fact that both camps are very passionate about the game and are very keen that none of their schools should be viewed with a jaundiced eye. As I had indicated to a respondent, the other day there are a number of angles that need to be looked at. The issue has the following components:

1.The alleged foul play by Pathana

2.The inefficiency/apparent deliberate turning of a blind eye on the alleged foul play by the referee

3.The inefficiency/apparent deliberate turning of a blind eye on the alleged foul play by the two assistant referees

4.The Royal walk out

At the time of writing last week, what was established beyond doubt was the walk out by Royal and hence my opinion on the same. At no time will I ever condone foul play and if the video evidence suggests foul play, the players concerned must be taken to task, including a possible ban. As of now I am made to understand that the relevant authorities are viewing the video evidence and we should hopefully see some action in the coming days. In our analysis of such issues, we need to be careful to ensure that our personal loyalties, affiliations to the alma mater, institutions and other individuals do not mar our judgement.

If the referee has turned a blind eye, he must be suitably dealt with, which could also include a ban, etc. In a number of articles previously, I have criticised the lackadaisical approach and apparent limited role of the two assistant referees. In all probability such an incident may open the eyes of the think tank of local rugby into taking some form of action to improve the levels of administration of the game.

According to reliable sources, the decision of the referee to restart the game by awarding a penalty is flawed. What should have been done was to have the Royal player kick the ball in an appropriate manner, and if found to be deliberately being kicked out once again, a scrum/lineout called for at the 50 metre mark. Thus the restart by Pathana via a penalty that was permitted by the referee is inappropriate and the subsequent score by Pathana null and void.  

It is a shame that the referees support team did not advise the referee of the correct procedure as this indicates lack of knowledge of the finer points of the game. Such decisions will definitely, make the rugby adoring public lose faith in the competence of the referee. Some urgent remedial action is required, if the authorities are to restore any form of self respect in this regard.

As I was critical of the walkout by Royal last week, a question posed was then should Arjuna have been banned for his standoff in defence of Murali. It is indeed food for thought, as had Arjuna left the field of play, he would have been in serious trouble. He chose to walk close to the line and thus was saved. If one looks at the Test match between Pakistan and England, when Pakistan was accused of ball tampering, they refused to take the field of play after the tea break. Thus they forfeited the match. However subsequently this verdict was changed, the reasoning of which confounds many critics to this day.



(The writer can be reached via [email protected].)