Rugby, Lies and Videotape

The much anticipated video of Isipatana’s violent conduct in the game against Royal College finally arrived. Given that I wasn’t at the match and had heard so much about the criminality of the proceedings, mainly from my Royalist friends, I was anxious to see this for myself. if you haven’t seen it yet, here it is…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCu0C-tgvjA

First things first.

The eye gouges that happened, and there were two that looked serious, were unacceptable. They were blatant, unnecessary and unacceptable for any level of the sport and more so at school level. The video contains the jersey numbers and the SLSRFA must give out the strongest possible punishment to the perpetrators.

With most games now being streamed, or recorded by the teams for their own edification, it is likely that violence of this nature can and will be cited in the future, and I sincerely hope more schools make used of the IRB’s sanctioned procedure to ensure that this sort of conduct does not go unpunished. It is also important to send the message to the players that even if the ref misses them on the day, the cameras won’t. 

Isipatana has learned this lesson the hard way and they will have to suffer the consequences. 

Given the hoo ha that erupted, and the consequent walk off though, I was expecting to see a blood bath, which – in all honesty – I did not. 

There were some pretty bad injuries, and that suggests that some incidents were missed by the cameras as well. However, what the Media Unit of Royal College have done as a result of missing some of those incidents, for no fault of theirs, have diluted the impact of the video with some pretty innocuous incidents being packaged with the truly violent incidents. 

Let me leave no room for ambiguity. The eye gouging incidents were NOT acceptable. The players must be punished, and if Isipatana deems fit, they must take action against whoever may have advised the schoolboys to resort to these specific tactics, if indeed such advice was given. 

But there are other issues that need to be discussed.

The incidents on the tape are fleeting. And the referee can be excused for missing a few of them. But what is incomprehensible is how the referee disallowed those tries that that Royal pushed over. The touch judges and the referee were on the spot to see them, should have seen them, and should have awarded them. It is quite reasonable for Royal to have thought they were on the receiving end of some bigger diabolical plot to deprive them of the win. For me these two tries were the worst calls of the evening. Inexcusable.

In the face of that I am surprised that Royal said, on my show, that they did not walk out due to an issue with the refereeing. If they did, I would have had no problem with it. But they took pains to set out that they were not doing that. 

The punches and kicks that were executed by the Patana boys were cowardly at best. Malicious and thuggish at worst. It was really sad to see a swift kick being administered and then the culprit haring off in order to escape attention. It really was embarrassing.

But it also must be said that the kicks that were visible on the tape – and I admit there may have been others which were not on the tape – did not look like they were kicks which could administer much damage. However, the evidence is mounting when Peiris, the openside for Royal, seemed to have suffered a sort of fit, which was indicative of a kick to the head. There was a similar incident when Sithum Pieris suffered a much more violent convulsion which resulted in a red card for the Patana second rower in that instance. The fact that there were no red cards for some of the stuff that should have been visible is a problem. A problem with officiating. 

Isipatana on the other hand exploited the situation which they were allowed to get away with. 

Now anyone who has played rugby understands that there is an element of physicality. In fact the handbags between the two props, and the counter rucking on the Royal tryline, are not even incidents that should have made it on to the video. The punch to Jamaldeen and the swift little kicks were crass and in poor taste but I’ve seen a lot worse. 

I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve administered the hand to the face while getting up off the ground, used my bodyweight to lever myself off an opposition player, made sure you pushed off their bodies and not the floor etc. during a rugby match. I’ll challenge anyone to say they’ve played without doing any of that. I’ve raked players, I’ve held them by their necks. It happens. 

And the exact same thing has happened to me, and I’ve never walked off any match. I had my eye gouged so bad once it ripped my contact lens in two. 

And as much as the referee has to crack down on this stuff, there is an unspoken code among team mates, which means you look out for each other. And in this game, while Pradeep Fernando did not take control and maintain discipline, I think Royal could have prevented it degenerating to the point that it did.

I’m not saying Royal should have retaliated to violence with violence, but I didn’t see even one Royal player even pointing a finger at an offending Patanian. When Royal were awarded a penalty at one point, and were retreating to the 5m mark, the Isipatana player walked up, brazenly, and kicked the Royal no.6 in the backside. A very literal kick in the ass. For me, this displayed the impunity, arrogance and cheekiness that Isipatana had at that point. 

I’m not advocating that no.6 turned back and kicked in retaliation. No. But he should have turned back, and instead of whingeing at the linesman, walked up to the offender and told him what his mates will do to him at the bottom of the next ruck. Given that the Royal forwards were bigger and looked in better condition, it was inexcusable that they let themselves be bullied by a smaller team at their own home ground. You do NOT let a guy who kicks you in the ass and laughs at you, get away with it.

You. Just. Don’t.

Turning to the refs for protection is just stupid on the part of the Royal think tank. Refereeing has been shit before, will continue to be shit, and it was foolish to expect that it would be any different on that afternoon. If a ref is not even going to warn a player because of something so blatantly obvious then sly gouges are definitely not going to be spotted.

The ass kicking incident was not dangerous. It was no violent. It was just humiliating. Royal got schooled in their own backyard and were impotent in the face of the rogering. 

It was clear that Royal had been instructed not to retaliate. And this is where I think Royal make the larger mistake. They feared that if one of their players reacted, they would be red carded and miss the services of the players for the Bradby. I think this is counter productive. Royal’s preoccupation with the Bradby, is their own downfall. Coaches jobs depend on one – well, two – games. Committee’s successes or failures are determined not by the season but this one final encounter. Sponsors forget everything, if Bradbys are won. It’s silly. Players who train hard for an entire season and pre season, cannot have their self – worth governed by the outcome of one home and away game. It is just not fair.

Royal obviously feel they need to have their 1st XV avaiable to have any chance of winning this year’s Bradby. With chinks appearing in Trinity’s armour they know they can salvage the loss to Science and other lacklustre performances with this win. So not getting red carded was the priority for this game, and it was pretty obvious this had been drummed into the players’ minds. There is no way therefore that a player, who has had this mantra of Bradby, Bradby, Bradby, imposed upon him, take a chance to actually play rugby and focus on the Patana game and walking out of that with your head held high. 

With all the focus on making it onto the field 2 weeks hence. Royal forgot to play this game. Their rugby authorities had obviously made the calculation that Isipatana were opportunity cost for having their best available XV on the field in Pallakelle. I don’t agree with this judgment call, but that is only Royal’s business.

Personally I feel it is a let down of the other opponents Royal face. It is disrespectful not only to the opposition, but also to the Royal rugby team, who are almost muzzled in order that they can play this one game. If that’s the case, Royal should just pull out of the league and play only Trinity for the entire season. But surely that can’t justify the sponsor’s cash injection so they have to pay lip service to the league. 

The walk out was obviously something that had been discussed and not a last resort occurrence as was obvious by events on the day. That Isipatana had come with a plan to intimidate Royal, was obvious. However, even they probably did not realise how successful that plan was going to be. Royal surrendered meekly. Given that they had a Bradby to play. 

They didn’t front up to the intimidation tactics, on their own home ground. They could have reacted non – violently, and with some hard hits in the scrum, some aggressive tackling, hard hits with the ball in hand and some aggressive counter rucking, they could have had the smaller Isipatana team begging for mercy. That is what they should have done.

I had one thing I used to tell referees who missed things. “Sir, either you sort this out, or I will”. And we usually did. I’m not advocating an all out brawl as people think I am.

But sometimes when someone – like Patana’s 12 and 16 – were being a little too cheeky, you’d send the word around. ‘Machan, that bugger is hitting. If you get the chance, sort him out’. Most often someone would get the chance. Royal never took their chances.

The reality is that sometimes in life, people bend the rules and resort to underhand tactics to beat you. How you respond to that is your choice. Royal made that choice. And for the restraint they showed they must be applauded.

However, the motivation for that restraint doesn’t allow me do applaud too loudly. There is a difference between not getting riled up and letting someone get under your skin the way they want to, as opposed to allowing yourself to get humiliated and abused on your home turf. 

Isipatana resorted to some pretty appalling tactics to try and sneak themselves a win. The referee was appalling in the way he failed to manage that game. The biggest talking point should be the two disallowed tries. However, Royal, by not playing aggressive rugby allowed themselves to be shown up in front of their fans, who are now playing the ‘restraint’ card, in order to justify the walkout.

Given the unwillingness to get carded by standing up for yourself, and intent on protecting the players for the Bradby, the Royalists found themselves left with only that one option. It is not the moral highground that they took. It was a corner they backed themselves into.

The obsession with the Bradby is not healthy. If Royal produce a good, competitive rugby team, they will be able to win the Bradby, while being thereabouts in the league. But if they have only one result in order to define their season, then that is a disservice they’re doing to a hard working team. It is very possible that Royal’s enforced passivity could have resulted in a player missing the Bradby due to injury. That would have really pissed the player off. 

It was an unfortunate day for rugby.