Sports

Sports

Nipping it in the bud
By Vimal Perera
The Disciplinary committee of the SLFRU met on Thursday the 09th to continue their inquiry on the saga that unfolded following the sevens of 29th January 2006. The incidents of assault on an intruder, who now has been identified as a trainer and the subsequent exchange of fisticuffs between a player each of CH & FC and Kandy is now history.

A fact of the incident is that the players are captains of the respective teams. The captains who should have led their respective teams by better example. What followed thereafter was a walk out by the CH and FC team and a finger being leveled at officials of the club who have made statements to the press which are considered as violations of the code of conduct. There is also a question on the involvement of a selector who it is alleged to have been in support of the walkout. A weekend newspaper commented on an alleged police complaint made by a national player and is said to be against a selector. This issue may not be dealt with if there is no direct complaint to the Union.

owever they should be aware of the fact that it has now been reported and there is a police complaint. There is a need to clear the player or the selector whoever is not in the wrong. Else what faith will players have in the selection process?

The rugby public is now waiting to see the action or the reaction that will follow the disciplinary inquiry. The Union should show what stuff it is made of and where necessary severely admonish and or send off those responsible for the disgusting affair.

When you think back on what happened on Sunday the 29th I cannot help but wonder whether this is a result of an individual’s spontaneous behavior over an issue.

If players listen during the day as well as days prior on a cross over and how unfair the accused club is; then their minds are conditioned. If to this you add that the Union is lethargic and reluctant to take action the issue of dislike is reinforced. The players then become victims of power struggle. The trainer is alleged to have shown a finger “shove it up” to the captain of the opposing side. Are these necessary for the game? This is what civilized components of the rugby society should ask.

Last time a team walked out was a schools team in 1983. The action taken by the then Schools and the SLRFU (at that time schools section was an adjunct of the Union) was to suspend the entire team for the school season. Possibly the incident being far away the players may have not realized the serious nature of their action. If they were pressurized by officials on the course of action they too need to be dealt with. The collective responsibility falls on the club.

There is speculation whether the club officials accused of violating the code of conduct will come for the inquiry. They may not have time for such trivial issues as a code of conduct and an inquiry? It was apparent by the absence on the first day. If that be the attitude then it is time for the union to crack the whip. There has to be disciplined all around. If the union lets things go and take light action, the season of 2006 will be one huge mess. Walkout threats will be the order of the day and the cancer will spread to schools too. The danger at the school level is greater with over obsessive old boys who are naturally biased getting involved.

The game is now in its half way mark with the disciplinary committee meeting for a second day. The people await the sentence and to see whether those in governing positions are indeed capable of governing. There is certainty that the present composition of the council is gentlemen with stronger spine and their action will be the best for the game. The walk out is a serious affair and needs to be addressed seriously. This does not mean that other issues are to be forgotten. They too have to be dealt with for the betterment of the game.

Top