A Fine Mess

By Scott MacLean

The National 1^st XV Top Four takes place in Palmerston North this weekend, and whatever happens a new name will be engraved on the trophy as none of the four schools that have qualified have ever won it before. Out of the north North Harbour’s Westlake Boys toppled Auckland champs Sacred Heart, Tauranga Boys upset perennial contenders Hamilton Boys in the Chiefs region, and a week earlier Southland Boys beat their Christchurch counterparts.

The fourth side is Hurricanes regional winners and hometown team Palmerston North Boys High, but the saga is how they got there. And through no fault of them or the other teams, the week is overshadowed by yet another instance of the ugly side of school rugby.

—————————————————————————————————

The Saturday before last saw Miramar’s Polo Ground play host to the regional semi-final between Scots College, winners a week earlier of the Wellington Championship, and Feilding High School, who had won their competition (the Central North Island) and were thus the highest ranked Hurricanes region school from that competition. Scots won on the day by 43-34, but what followed was a week of acrimony, claim, and counter-claim as allegations of cheating and poor sportsmanship followed, as an injury to a Scots prop reduced the contest to uncontested scrums after 15 minutes as they didn’t have any replacement front-rowers.

There’s plenty of conjecture about what transpired, so here’s a few facts:

• The relevant team number’s laws for this particular match are set out in NZ Rugby’s Domestic Safety Law Variations (DSLVs). For this match to start a team must have 15 players and three front rowers so matches can start with contested scrums. Competitions can set their own requirements and the CNI competition that Feilding plays in does, requiring teams to have five front-rowers in their match day squad.
• It also sets out the number of players that can be nominated – i.e. named on the team sheet. A team can only list the full complement of 22 players if they have five front row players and are limited to 21 if they only have one, or 20 if they have none.
• On the day before the match, Scots submitted a teamsheet with 22 players named. Those players that are front rowers were not noted, but it is unclear if they were required to do so by the competition organisers. The DSLVs themselves do not require this.
• Prior to kick-off on the day, Scots withdrew one player from their squad and did not replace him, leaving them with 21.
• Footage provided by a spectator and publicly available online clearly shows that Scots had six players in playing kit heading to and standing behind their dead ball line at kick-off.
• After 15 minutes Scots’ tighthead prop suffers an injury and cannot continue in the match. There is no dispute that the injury is legitimate, but as Scots do not have any replacements the match is forced to continue with uncontested scrums.
• At a point after that but before halftime, that same footage shows one of those Scots replacements in playing kit leaving the bench area and heading towards their changing sheds. He later re-emerges having changed back into dress uniform.
• The footage later shows that a Scots coach (incorrectly identified as a Hurricanes Youth Council delegate) approaches the Feilding coaches and replacements. There isn’t any audio, but the gesticulations of some would indicate that the message wasn’t well received. It was alleged by Feilding in their complaint that the Scots coach attempted to inform them that they (Scots) only had 20 players, which the footage they provided appears to counter.
• Scots uses only 20 players on the field in the match.

The technical breach here – albeit on the minor end of the scale – is Scots presenting 21 players at kick-off when the DSLV rules only allow them to have 20, even though they redress that later during the match.

The past week has seen no fewer than three separate hearings, the last of which was heard on Friday afternoon leaving Scots to travel and face Palmerston North – who had beaten Napier Boys and been left waiting to see who they’d play – in the regional final the following day.

The kicker here is that then having fought to play in that regional final, Scots then defaulted it owing to only having two fit and suitable front rowers and followed up with a social media release that – from the reaction – largely inflamed the feelings towards the school and its administrators. As it was put to me, why couldn’t Scots have recognised that they may not be unable to front, and instead sought to have the allegations made against them cleared but not object to Feilding being able to play in that match instead if they could not?

Instead, we get a lot of ego-flexing, and another bunch of kids used as pawns to facilitate that.

College rugby just can’t help shooting itself in both feet.

Follow Scott on Twitter