By STEVE MASCORD
RUGBY League, so the old maxim goes, was born out of rebellion and is doomed to forever rebel.
How can you mount a good argument for sucking it up and toeing the party line for the greater good when we owe our very existence to a bunch of quarrelsome gentlemen who gathered at the George Hotel on August 29, 1895?
It’s perhaps our most enduring tradition: a good strop with the threat of an all-out uprising.
The Super League War of 1995-97 is the most famous example since the formation of the Northern Union but show-off journalists wanting to use the word “schism” are better off covering our game than just about any other beat in the ‘paper.
Why, just yesterday the chairman of the Lebanon Rugby League, Mohamad Habbous, stood down. There had been an uprising by players, threatening to boycott the mid-year Test against Papua New Guinea.
It’s unknown what, if any, impact the departure of Habbous will have on the situation.
Meanwhile, Fiji have no games scheduled because their senior players are also threatening to withdraw their services over a pay dispute. Two of the best-performed countries in the World Cup have uncertain short-term futures at the top level.
Then there’s a controversy we are all aware of: NRL clubs reluctant to release England and New Zealand players for a sanctioned Test in Denver.
Are we too quick to ‘biff’ in rugby league? Surely we are! So what can be done about it?
We can hardly just appeal to a old fashioned loyalty and unity when we were born in the fires of acrimony.
Perhaps we need a document that gives us guidelines for HOW to have a barney, a blue, a dust-up, a donnybrook, a quarrel, a scrap, a row.
There is no doubt that rugby league’s capacity for dissension is harmful – as we are seeing at the moment with a fight over exactly how the game should expand into America and which arm of the sport should be doing it and who gets what.
What if the entire rugby league family, while accepting we are quarrelsome by nature, bought into a Universal Dispute Charter and stuck it to our metaphorical fridge door?
Here’s some of the things that could be on it:
- Are both positions, without doubt, in the interests of the sport as a whole? For instance, is it possibly good for rugby league that the Denver Test be disrupted?
2. Have all democratic processes been explored? Did the Lebanese players present their case to the LRL board and assemble their own ticket to run for the board?
3. Have all sides of the debate been aired directly between the warring factions? Have the Fijian players sat across a table from the officials with whom they have an issue?
4. Has there been an attempt at arbitration? Perhaps a group could be formed with experience in this area (para-league-al?) – I met a diplomat the other day, fresh off the plane from Afghanistan who is a massive rugby league fan.
And if all these boxes are ticket and you still can’t agree, be our guest – go all 1895 on each other!
