Senior rugby swap seems to be legal

Press, 1 May 1978, Page 28

Senior rugby swap seems to be legal

By

KEVIN McMENAMIN

While there is considerable concern about University A’s action in playing two members of its B team in its senior rugby match against Sydenham on Saturday it would seem that the University club has bent or broken no rules.

Because of injuries, University A, which beat Sydenham, 25-17, brought into its team the half-back, Gary Barkle, and the full-back, Alan Trembatih, from its B side.

The promotions caused considerable discussions at Rugby Park, where the game was played, and in the opinion of some, including officials of the Canterbury union, University A was out of order. They based their view on a rule' which says that clubs with two senior teams cannot transfer players from one team to the other after they have played two games. It is not disputed that both Barkle and Trembatih have had two games for the B side this season.

However, an amendment to the same rule in 1969 says that this applies only to players who are “classified under these rules as senior players.’’ Neither Barkle nor Trembath were before Saturday classified as senior players. The University club, for reasons which may have had the possibility of last Saturday’s situation in mind, chose at the start of the season to register Barkle as an under-20 player and Trembath as a senior-B player. An automatic regrading to senior takes effect only a player has had four games in the grade. Laurie O’Reilly, the Uni= versity A coach, was confident yesterday that his club had done nothing wrong. As a lawyer, he might be expected to have studied the fine print. The president of the club (B. J, Drake), also a lawyer, just as promptly dismissed any suggestion that the club had erred.

Mr O’Reilly said that University had taken similar steps in the past and because of its special situation as a club with two senior teams, paid careful attention to how it registered its players.

That this case has commanded attention is undoubtedly because it involves Barkle, who was recently included in the Canterbury representative squad. The movements would probably have gone unnoticed with a lesserknown player.

But while University might have the rule book on its side the Canterbury Rugby Football Union ma\ not be willing to let the matter rest. The union’s president (R. W. Thomas) said yesterday that even if University was technically correct he was not satisfied that the spirit of the rule had been observed.

“The club seems to have gone outside the original arrangement in respect to clubs with two senior teams,” he said. For this reason Mr Thomas said that he expected the union’s management committee to discuss the topic at its meeting tomorrow.

“We may have to ask University for more information and hear its reasons for the promotions. Maybe the rule will have to be reviewed.” Sydenham will consider entering a protest when its executive meets this evening. The club’s president (Gordon Kinzett) said that Sydenham had been beaten fair and square and the club would not want to enter a protest just for the sake of doing so. However, the matter seemed to require some investigation. While University might be able to prove quickly the legality of its actions, an interesting situation now arises in respect to Barkle. Mr O’Reilly said that because each University team was a separate entity, Barkle could, under the rules, have two more games for the A side before he had to be declared a permanent member of either the A team or the B team.

University is expecting a well performed Japanese half-back to join it shortly and, with its first choice, Mark Romans, doubtful for least another round, it might be inclined to keep its options open. At lea’st with four senior games now to his credit this season Barkle is unquestionably tied to the grade.