THE SOUTHERN SUBURBS ISSUE

Reprinted from the Tregenza Times, September 2004:

Members of Old Collegians will no doubt be aware, at some level, of the controversy that has surrounded the Division 1 finals competition this year. To follow is a brief summary of the facts as we understand them. We have tried to keep opinion out of the following description of events, so that you can make up your own minds.

SARU changed the Competition Rules in 2004 so that to qualify for finals a player must have played at least two games in each round. However, a player can be dispensated in the event of (for example) injury.

Some Souths' players, from Fiji, Wales and Mt Gambier, did not meet those criteria, having arrived in Adelaide in the second or third round. On the Friday before the Semi Final between Port Adelaide and Souths, Souths applied to the Supreme Court to be allowed to field the players who did not meet the criteria set out in the Competition Rules.

The 2004 Competition Rules were made by the SARU Board under delegation from a meeting of the members. The SARU Constitution requires that the competition rules be made by the members. Souths argued that the 2004 Competition Rules are not valid, as they were not made by a meeting of the members as required by the Constitution.

SARU believed that the rules were validly made. The Court did not have time to consider the issue in full at that first hearing. The Court set a further hearing date for the next week, and ordered that SARU hold a dispensation hearing the next morning.

Any players not dispensated in that meeting could be played by Souths at their own risk. That is, if the later decision of the court went against Souths and they had played non-dispensated players, then any win would count instead as a forfeit. In the dispensation hearing, all but one player was given clearance to play. That "ineligible" player (the fullback) was played in any event. Souths beat Port Adelaide.

The Court was to convene again the following Thursday (being the Thursday before the Preliminary Final). The only thing which would have been decided at that hearing was whether there was a "case to answer" by SARU. If there was held to be a case to answer, the Court would have held the matter over for trial at some stage in the following months. In the meantime, Souths would (probably) have been allowed to play in the 2004 finals with their non-dispensated player. That hearing would have involved significant legal costs being incurred by both SARU and Souths. SARU elected not to defend the case and allowed Southern Suburbs to play the non-dispensated player. A media release announced that this settlement was "in the best interests of Rugby Union in South Australia on terms which enable the Southern Suburbs Rugby Union team to continue to play in the 2004 finals series."

Southern Suburbs then beat Old Collegians in the Semi-final, but lost to Brighton in the Grand Final. Had SARU proceeded with the case and been successful, it is unlikely to have changed the way the finals were played, but might (in the ensuing months) have thrown into question the 2004 Premiership results. The Competition Rules will now be put to a full members meeting to avoid any future dispute.

For the purposes of completeness, here are some of the various PERSONAL OPINIONS which we have heard/read. We endorse none of them, but provide them to you only for discussion.

- "Lack of balls, has been the management model from the SARU this season, from start and now to pathetic, gutless finish. Roseworthy's First XV will play Burnside's Second XV for the Division 4 title, Onka's Second XV will play Old Collegians Third XV for Division 3, Burnside's First XV will play Brighton's Second XV for the second grade and Brighton will play a World Invitation XV with a chance that, although not eligible, Jonny Wilkinson will play 5/8 to allow David Tito to move to Fullback for Souths."

- "...it is obviously disappointing ... we try to lead the way by injecting some quality players into this nothing competition ..."

- Souths must be able to import talent, as it does not have sufficient junior players to draw upon

- Souths ultimately only fielded one non-dispensated player. If people have a complaint, it should be with the Dispensation Committee, not with Souths.

- SARU should force any club which threatens legal action to take the matter all the way to final court hearing, or else it sets a precedent that it will allow itself to be bullied in the future.