Making blunders a part of their way of life?

By a Special Correspondent

Though I live abroad, I have always kept in touch with some people in Sri Lanka to keep myself abreast of happenings on the field of sports in my home country.

Knowing my interest in these matters, few days ago a friend of mine sent me a few articles which had appeared in some Sri Lankan newspapers. One article titled ‘A tale of two Associations’ featured in your newspaper made interesting reading.

The said article vividly described how the two associations, one in charge of Schools’ Rugby (SLSRFA)  and the other one, the Society of Rugby Referees (SLSRFR), had blundered on a couple of issues relating to few schools’ rugby football matches played recently.

The latest I read is about a match which should have been played in Kandy. It had been called off as a result of a decision by SLSRFR taking a decision not to appoint referees for schools’ rugby matches.

While SLSRFR has the right to take any action for the safety and protection of the members of the society, communicating such a decision to the parties concerned, in advance, is the duty and responsibility of both these associations. That is based on the well known principle of courtesy.

It was reported in the newspapers that a communication breakdown between these two associations had led to the decision taken by SLSRFR not to blow at school matches not being conveyed to the two schools. One of the teams is known to have spent over rupees one lakh only for hiring three buses for their players to travel from Colombo to Kandy.

When popular and advanced modes of communication such as the telephone, fax, e-mail and text messages are being widely used even by students in primary classes, why these adults fail to do their duty by using one of these modes of communication becomes questionable. Those responsible for this blunder should be held accountable and the association which is responsible for this blunder should be compelled to make good the financial losses incurred by the two schools.

I heard that these two associations have also drawn a lot of flak from the rugby-loving public regarding the manner they have handled one of the school matches played last month, at which one school had walked out claiming the safety of their players.

The principal of the host school which walked out is known to have made a public announcement after the match was abandoned to the effect that he had decided to award victory to the school which remained on the field and was willing to continue the game. This principal had been a member of the presentation party when the trophy, which was on offer for the winners of this match, was awarded.

However, SLSRFA reportedly issued a press statement few days later saying that the match would be treated a draw. I logged on to their website www.slsrfa.com on Saturday 8 June 2013, which still displays the score as 27-20. On what basis SLSRFA subsequently decided to change the official results of the match baffles me.

SLSRFA had also been silent as to why punishment was not imposed, in accordance with Rules 9.1 and 9.2 displayed on their own website, on the host team which walked out. Will the SLSRFA allow any team to walk out of the playing field, in the future, claiming safety of players?

On the other hand, SLSRFR is known to have gone by a short video clip, produced by the team which walked out, and suspended the referee and the two touch judges of the match. The question to be posed to the gentlemen who run this society is why they should appoint referees for matches if they could very well resort to the most convenient method of arriving at decisions of matches by watching videos from their armchairs.  

The media too has kept readers in the dark by still not revealing what the charges against the referees and the two touch judges are. It will be interesting to ascertain whether a proper inquiry was held into the matter by an impartial panel and opportunities were provided to these match officials to explain incidents which both teams are alleged to have committed.

My friends have also reported that though players of one school had alleged eye-gouging, not a single player of that school even have a dressing above or below their eyes when they played a famous rugby match in the hill country over the weekend. Has medical science in Sri Lanka advanced to such an extent that eye transplants are carried out with such lightning speed, thereby making players to take part in rugby, a contact sport, within a few days after surgery?

This had made readers wonder whether there had been any serious injuries at all in that disputed match and whether the host team concerned had blown issues out of proportion.

Both these associations seem to lack transparency and run by people who lack efficiency and basic managerial skills. It is believed that the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Sports would intervene soon and instruct both these associations to put their houses in order.