Story by Iain Payten
Disgruntled Shute Shield club bosses are considering a boycott of the prestigious Ken Catchpole Medal awards next month over a decision by Sydney Rugby Union to not strip points from Eastern Suburbs for a breach of the player points system that serves to equalise talent across the competition.
The controversy, which moved one rival club boss to demand the SRU reconsider its decision, kicked off when Easts fielded a team that by the competitions rules was too strong in their win over Southern Districts in round 11 of the Shute Shield.
In what amounts to a salary cap-style equalisation structure, the Shute Shield operates under a complex player points system, where all players are given a value. Tier-one Test players are worth 20 points, contracted Super Rugby players are worth 10 points, and various points values below that reflect a players first-grade experience and any professional background.
Players can get reductions for factors such as being a local junior or having spent longer at a club, but Shute Shield teams cant have more than 100 combined points on the field at any one time. All clubs enter their player values to a central database.
Many clubs dont get close to fielding a team totalling 100 points, but Easts, who currently sit on top of the Shute Shield ladder, have a star-laden roster and often flirt with the limit.
In a round 11 clash against Souths, Easts went over the 100-point cap due to former Tonga prop Vunipola Fifita being submitted as a one-point player. In the two previous seasons, Fifita had been a 13-point and 12-point player because he had played five or more Tests for a tier-two nation.
After receiving a complaint, SRU launched an investigation and last week determined Easts had breached the limit against Souths. But in a letter to Shute Shield club bosses, SRU general manager Peter Watkins said Easts would not be penalised, as the club had based Fifitas reclassification on information from credible source.
Whilst you may question if that was a reasonable assertion there is no doubt a legitimate, credible source that was used in their determination, Watkins wrote.
This process uncovered a shortcoming in the SRU Operations Manual in that no single reference source is specified for determining player points.
SRU will now base all player points only Opta data, Watkins said.
It was also determined Fifitas input in the last 12 minutes of the win over Souths had not impacted the result and the club had not gone over the 100 points in other games.
Watkins declined to comment on Tuesday, but Easts chief executive Dom Remond explained the error had come after new coach Ben Batger reviewed all player points and re-graded Fifita based on evidence he had only played four Tests, not five.
Unfortunately there were varying sources of information and we used those as a base to reclassify, which was accepted. Post that, there was a discussion to say there is now going to be a single source, which is Opta, and based on that data he was reclassified back to the points he had previously, Remond said.
The SRU had addressed it all. I am sure some clubs are unhappy with it, but we werent in the wrong because we used credible sources to classify him. We wouldnt field a team that is over the 100 points.
Rival clubs are not happy with SRUs decision to not penalise Easts for the proven breach, however, particularly after Gordon were stripped of two points in round 11 for fielding a player, Ola Tauelangi, who had not been officially cleared to play after returning from Moana Pasifika.
In a letter sent to Watkins by Gordon president Matthew Glascott on Monday night, which was seen by this masthead, the SRU were accused of using double standards.
I am having trouble understanding the logic in not penalising Easts for breaching the player points for (the) game against Souths, Glascott wrote.
Has Easts breached the player points? Its either YES or NO. Why is SRU making excuses for a club when Gordon breached a registration policy and were deducted two points for playing a player for the last 20 min of a game. Even though he has been with the club for 4 years, was cleared by his Super rugby club but did not obtain international clearance until Monday morning. How is this breach more serious than that of Easts? We are having great difficulty accepting the lack of fairness and consistency.
Glascott declined to comment further on Tuesday.
Along with the perceptions of inconsistency, rival clubs are also concerned about other players at Easts being incorrectly classified. A message group of disgruntled club officials has discussed withholding Catchpole Medal votes for the remaining four rounds as a protest, according to informed sources who declined to comment due to the private nature of the discussions.
In his letter to club boss, Watkins said all breaches are considered on a case-by-case basis and the SRU determines sanctions in what we believe are in the overall interests of Premiership Rugby and fairness.
Easts escaped a sanction earlier in the year after West Harbour players complained they were victims of racial abuse while playing in a trial at Woollahra Oval. An SRU code of conduct hearing determined the abuse had occurred, but there was insufficient evidence it had come from Eastern Suburbs supporters.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...8c1083de&ei=65