Right of Reply Critique of Blindside Insights rugby column

I am writing a “Right to Reply” in response to the column titled “Royal to field 13 men at next RoyTho!” written by Arun Pillai, published in the Daily FT on Wednesday, 27 May 2026 (see: https://www.ft.lk/columns/Royal-to-field-13-men-at-next-RoyTho/4-792529)

While constructive critique and tactical analysis are vital to sports journalism, the article in question makes unsubstantiated claims regarding the discipline of a historic schoolboy team over a four-year period without providing factual data. 

Furthermore, it resorts to derogatory analogies regarding the spectators and match attendees that fall short of the editorial standards expected of the Daily FT.

The full article is filled with such malicious statements and the above is only two such incidents from the match I attended.

I kindly request that you publish a more balanced perspective in your upcoming print/online editions considering we are talking about school children playing a Sport they love. 

As an avid follower of schools rugby, I have shared the below email with Mr. Arun

“I am writing to exercise my right to reply regarding your tactical analysis column published in the Daily FT on Wednesday, 27 May, 2026. 

While sports journalism naturally welcomes critique, your piece crosses the line from objective analysis into sensationalism, utilising cheap analogies and unsubstantiated claims that target schoolboys and historic institutions.

First, your description of the entrance to Havelock Park for the Isipathana-Trinity encounter as resembling a “prime time ‘Dansal Dinner’” is both cheap and third-class. 

A ‘Dansela’ implies a free procession for a handout. 

The thousands of passionate supporters who lined up outside the grounds did so to purchase tickets for a highly anticipated school rugby fixture. 

They were there out of loyalty to cheer on their respective schools—not for a free meal. 

The irony is lost on no one that the only individuals walking into these ticketed events for a “free ride” are journalists flashing a media ID at the gate.

Furthermore, you state with total certainty that Trinity College has been developing “disciplinary issues... surfacing frequently from Marija’s first season until now, which has been overlooked for the past 4 years.” 

As a seasoned analyst, you should know that serious allegations require serious data. Where are the statistics over the last four years to justify this sweeping conclusion?

If you had analysed the actual gameplay rather than looking for a narrative to fit your headline, you would have noted the context of the initial cards. 

The match commentators themselves pointed out that the first two yellow cards were a bit harsh; the very first card could easily be viewed as a clear act of risk mitigation, where the Trinity player actively tried to shrug and avoid a collision with the opposition player.

School rugby is played by kids, yet you routinely resort to lazy, overly harsh descriptors like “pathetic,” “miserable,” and “horrendous” across multiple game reviews to describe their performance.

 It leaves one with the impression that you are trying far too hard to create drama, ending up with an overdone piece of writing. 

Perhaps getting a column on a Wednesday for rugby that concluded over the weekend leaves you with too much time to drum up unnecessary controversy just to generate clicks.

Critique the game by all means, but back it up with objective metrics rather than resorting to classless analogies and unverified narratives about schoolboy discipline.

Dilina Gunathilake 

Columnist’s response

My writeups do not resemble or follow any others that are published in contemporary times, and are not to be confused with sports reporting. My analysis is presented subjectively with frequent literary contexts, that can be categorised as “Literary Sports Journalism”, where readers will find varying unfamiliar tones represented in the language, such as amazement, curiosity, humor, sarcasm and ridicule, that are all blended into an opinionated writeup. This could be quite new to readers, and often difficult to comprehend for those who are at the receiving end, especially when some matters have to be expressed with some degree of harshness. The column also strives to be unbiased and “call a Spade a Spade”, with minimal or no sugar coatings on some occasions. All noteworthy performances of even the losing teams shall be hailed, and all the striking wrongdoings of the winners shall be highlighted.

While the ideas presented are not, and cannot be the absolute truth but are merely opinions, readers of varying degrees of knowledge, experience, comprehension, expectations and mindsets may or may not agree with what is being stated, and there is absolutely no necessity to do so. Interpretations of what was actually meant could also vary due to the aforementioned reasons. It should be duly noted that when behavior of school players that violates the five values of rugby is highlighted with appropriate tones and suitable metaphors, it is directly intended for the personnel who are responsible for keeping them behaving in a humanely dignified manner.

The intention is never to bring any particular School down, but to uplift the overall excellence and sportsmanship of the game. Giving undue credit to any institution to keep the readers happy is definitely not the objective of this column. As a critic, some things have to be put bluntly, so that the message is conveyed strongly to those who matter, which may either work as a shot in the Arm, or wake up sleeping Giants. Hence, the readers are kindly requested to perceive this column in the light of constructive criticism and not otherwise, although it may sound like the latter occasionally. The Schoolboys are much stronger in body and mind to take on these criticisms, thus the expectation is that the Rugby following community will mirror this stout mindset. Remember that, Rucks and Mauls may break their bones, but words shall only enhance them!