Bradby Scuffles….

I know at the outset of this blog post that opinion is going to be divided. 

In those circumstances it’s important to be mindful of the rules of natural justice:

1) No man shall judge his own case

2) Hear the other side. 

Try to do both those, especially if you’re a Trinitian or a Royalist.

The Haka

The Haka is a Maori tradition / challenge and sometimes even a welcome afforded by one tribe to another. Whether Trinity have the right or entitlement to perform one is a debatable question. Their coach is of Maori descent, and obviously if he doesn’t see a problem with them performing one, then why should anyone else care?

What they should care about is whether it was done properly. Royal were the hosts, and were the referees and host team informed this would take place. In the pressure cooker environment of the Bradby it’s important that pre game rituals do not cause any unnecessary drama. 

I don’t know if Trinity had made a request of Royal to do this, or at least informed them. It was not something that was ‘traditional’, either to Trinity or to the Bradby so it was a little out of the blue. The opponents should have been told so they could accept the challenge in the manner they thought fit.

I’m not sure if this was done. I hope it was.

Personally, I don’t think any school in Sri Lanka should try to liken themselves to the All Blacks. You don’t become a better rugby player because you do a haka, and given the fare on offer this season, I think all schools should be concentrating on improving their skills rather than the ancillary drama that camera phones and social media have sadly made more important than the rugby. 

“It’s just another sign of the times Miss Jones….it’s just another sign of the times”

Royal’s Reaction

Royal’s reaction is irrelevant to the above. When you are the host team, you don’t confront your opponent’s haka regardless of their right to perform it. You can react in whichever way you like – face it, turn your back on it, front up to it, ignore it whatever. But you can’t provoke an ugly brawl in your opponents own half. 

I’m neither a Royalist or a Trinitian, but as someone who has been going to the Bradby for the last 20 years it was embarrassing to watch. Really embarrassing. For both schools. 

Just for the record it was no more or less embarrassing than seeing the game stopped last year by a group of drunken old boys. Therefore, given the ugliness of the last two Bradbys for whatever reason, it’s probably time the two schools asked themselves what the hell is going on here, and fix things, if they want to remain an example to other rugby playing schools whom they have – in no uncertain terms – declared themselves better than. 

In addition to this, the unfortunate tragedy of the Royalist’s reaction, is its karmic timing. Mere weeks after lauding themselves as gentlemen and praising their self restraint against the Isipatana team, they themselves provoke what can only be described as a three wheeler stand fight.

Attempts to justify those scenes, will only highlight the myopia of Royal rugby, which is reflected in its results.  Are you creating the right environment for good Royalist rugby players? I don’t know. And it’s not a question I need to answer. 

The Game

The game progressed pretty much as I thought it would. Royal were tactically much better than they were in the second leg, and ended up winning the match. I thought Royal got it wrong in shifting Jamaldeen to full back and bringing in an untested Bahudeen at fly half in a high pressure game. 

It did succeed in giving the ball to Royal’s big centres a little more often, but Jamaldeens heroics from the back were largely pointless. He didn’t run great lines and didn’t free up Nimshan or Udesh on the wings. Despite that though, Royal had some clear cut opportunities which they botched. Horribly botched. It was a shame because both games were theirs for the taking. 

Out of 160 minutes of rugby Royal would have lost about 20 of those over both matches. However, Trinity are to be congratulated for making those minutes count. 

Their defence in this leg was brilliant. They put in a huge work rate, despite seeing very little of the ball. Footie had identified the weak link and dropped Girahagama and played virtually two full backs. It was a good tactic which made them much safer under the high ball. It takes a lot to withstand the battering of the pick and goes that Royal were executing well and Trinity did so manfully, conceding inevitably at the end. 

In the end it was fitness and tactics that decided this in Trinity’s favour. 

Dilroy

Dilroy Fernando handled a difficult game pretty well. I thought though he was a little lenient on the hindmost foot defence and the Trinity tacklers arriving at the breakdown, but it was certainly not something that would have changed the outcome of the game. 

Dilroy commanded the respect of the players. He was pretty strict as well, but every game he blew would be entertaining. And that like Jonathan Kaplan said last week is important because it’s the referee that conducts the orchestra. 

It’s sad to see Dilo retiring, but who can blame him? Having refereed for 30 years why would anyone want to risk getting assaulted and abused in the twilight of their career. What’s most sad about Dilo retiring is that there is no heir apparent. Jamal is not very fit, and Dimitri has some way to go yet. Charith Kodagoda is also potential, and people like Anil Jayasinghe and Aruna Jayasekera are not avaiable. 

He will be sorely missed. 

Will be interview Dilo tonight on The Score. Should be fun.