·        30 Nov 2025 | By The Touch Judge

If we cannot protect our players, we cannot protect our game

·         Revival without safety is a hollow promise

Dangerous play has become one of the most pressing issues affecting rugby worldwide and Sri Lanka is no exception. 

As the domestic game seeks revival amid the rise of unsafe tackles, reckless collisions, and poor technique, player welfare, match integrity, and the sport’s credibility are at stake.

The revival at risk

Amid this optimism, one issue threatens to derail progress: the rise of dangerous play. 

Reckless tackles, unsafe collisions, and poor technique are not just isolated incidents; they are becoming systemic, undermining both player welfare and the credibility of the sport. 

Who is responsible? Is it the players, the coaches, or the administrators of the school and club system? What can the governing body do about the situation? 

Why dangerous play persists

Coaching gaps 

Grassroots and club-level training often neglect tackle safety, leaving players ill-prepared. Seen at recent matches is an improvisation of the tackle where the hands seem to be around, not to complete the tackle, but to show you are doing so while actually executing a chop below the knee. 

Cultural glorification

‘Big hits’ are celebrated, while controlled, legal tackles rarely receive recognition – cultural factors: the ‘hard rugby’ mindset. 

Sri Lanka’s rugby culture often romanticises toughness. Phrases such as ‘play hard,’ ‘put them down,’ and ‘dominate the contact’ can be misinterpreted at the school and club level leading to the following:

·         Players attempting ‘big hits’ for crowd approval

·         Poor tackle body positions

·         Dangerous cleanouts at rucks

·         Reckless aerial contests

Weak officiating

Referees hesitate to enforce sanctions, fearing backlash from clubs or supporters. Whilst the attention to using World Rugby (WR) laws in the appointment of match officials garners applause, the repercussions of the fallout will be as referees seek to avoid the many complaints: will they start to micromanage?

Governance inertia

Disciplinary procedures exist on paper but lack consistent enforcement, allowing unsafe play to normalise. A particular case is the way schools hand down disciplinary decisions. 

The Judiciary follows WR sanctions, while the disciplinary committee issues findings with lower punishments. If the Judiciary recommends two matches, the disciplinary committee makes out one, and in appeal goes to warn and discharge. The action results in players not being disciplined, thereby putting their lives and limbs at risk. 

WR’s key tag is player safety. The governing body should establish a database to monitor indiscipline in club and school rugby. Some players get red and yellow cards for dangerous play year in, year out, from school days onward. It continues, as there is little to correct the wrong attitude and incorrect technique, but they use the bulk to their advantage, exposing others to danger. 

There is also the pseudo claim that the next is a traditional match and that the red card in the league is not applicable.

The red card process in rugby is evolving towards a universal application system, where a player sent off receives automatic off-field sanctions that apply consistently across competitions, rather than being fragmented by tournament or union rules.

Why universal application matters

·         Player welfare: ensures consistent punishment for dangerous play, reducing repeat offences.

·         Integrity of the game: prevents situations where players exploit differences between competitions.

·         Educational value: referees, citing commissioners, and coaches can train with a clear, global standard.

·         Global governance: aligns with WR’s push for transparency and fairness in officiating and discipline.

·         School rugby (Sri Lanka): calls have been for red-card sanctions to apply across both league and knockout formats, as inconsistency undermines discipline. Last year, in the schools tournaments, the reds, in a knockout, were not promoted to a league. In addition, schools did not accumulate the yellow card issued in one match and were not subject to a disciplinary inquiry as mandated by WR. Similarly, the red card in the league did not affect players who played the traditional shield matches.

The consequences

·         Player welfare: concussions and spinal injuries are rising, with long-term health consequences ignored.  

·         Match integrity: games devolve into brute-force contests rather than skill and strategy.  

·         Credibility: sponsors, foreign players, and fans lose confidence in a system perceived as unsafe.  

·         National team performance: domestic habits of recklessness translate into costly penalties and poor discipline internationally.

A blueprint for reform

Revival must be on safety. That requires the following: 

·         Referee empowerment: training and governance backing to sanction dangerous play without hesitation.  

·         Citing the commissioner system: post-match reviews to catch missed incidents and reinforce accountability.  

·         Transparency: publishing disciplinary outcomes to build trust and demonstrate consistency.

The call to action

Sri Lanka Rugby (SLR) cannot afford to treat dangerous play as a side issue. It is the litmus test of whether revival is real or rhetorical. Protecting players is protecting the game itself. 

If governance reforms are to mean anything, they must begin with a clear, uncompromising stance: unsafe play has no place in our sport.

Responsibility and governance in referee appointments  

Responsibility for rugby governance lies squarely with the governing body, whether through the Match Review Committee, Technical Committee, or Development Committee. 

However, recent commentary during the Police vs. Air Force fixture revealed a troubling disconnect. When asked what the Development Committee was proposing, one member replied: “To spread the game so that it is played on every corner – whether a paddy field, the beach, or any vacant land.”  

This vision, while enthusiastic, strays far from the committee’s primary mandate: ensuring that rugby development programmes align with WR standards and principles. 

Encouraging participation is commendable, but without proper technical instruction and safe environments, such expansion risks exposing players to injury and undermining skill development.  

WR-compliant appointment of referees  

SLR has now reinstated the WR-compliant process for appointing match officials across all domestic tournaments, effective from Week 2 of the current season. Under this framework:  

·         Match organisers carry out referee appointments in line with governance standards.  

·         Referees’ unions focus on training, development, evaluation, and nominations, but do not make appointments themselves.  

This separation of roles safeguards impartiality and strengthens the integrity of competition.

The recognition and appointment of referees in Sri Lanka is a laudable step forward. Too often, match officials are accused of bias, their impartiality questioned as they act simultaneously as judge, jury, and executioner. Strengthening referee structures is therefore essential to protect fairness and credibility in the sport.  

Laws vs. governance  

The laws of the game define the referee’s authority on the field. Governance standards, however, determine how referees are appointed and reviewed, ensuring that performance oversight remains distinct from fixture control.  

The unanswered questions  

What remains unclear is the structure for determining the following:  

·         Who is suitable for appointment?  

·         Who has conducted the review of performance?  

Without a transparent framework, the process risks opening another ‘can of worms.’ This concern will only intensify as the school season begins, with schools seeking to appoint referees for their fixtures and traditional matches at season’s end demanding their own officials.  

The present situation concerns the appointment of match officials for four matches a week, but the problems will multiply as, during the school season, there will be over 20 matches a week. 

The demand for and appointment of referees will put pressure, as there will be more passion and sentiment overriding rational thinking and the money, even more than the clubs. 

(The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the official position of this publication)