Rugby 2009 has all thequalifications to be an annus horribilis. After all, it's the year in which the government was forced into appointing a two-man interim committee to run the affairs of the game, thereby terminating a tradition as old as the game here. On the face of it at least, this government intervention represents a shameful indictment on the game's system of governance by elected officials, specifically the one preceding the Interim Committee.

The 2007/08 elected committee of DIG Nimal Lewke, of course, wasn't by any means angelic so as to render it infallible. Indeed, it had been the butt of quite some virulent criticism, arising chiefly from suspicions that its president had been partial to his son in the national captaincy stakes. As well, there wasn't always unanimity among its own ex-co over extravagant spending.

But whether rugby deserved to be penalised with the imposition of an IC for the sins of omission and commission of the DIG Lewke regime is questionable. Nothing nearly resembling the horrendous allegations (not excluding fraud and violation of the country's laws) that forced an interim committee on cricket was levelled against the 2008 elected rugby administrators. If the elected cricket officials were accused of grievous crimes, the crimes of their rugby counterparts, by comparison, were petty.

Be that as it may, the setting up of an IC clearly was intended to cleanse the elected committee's "mess,'' but nothing of the sort has happened. Eight months into the job and the IC management has only gone to further compound rugby's problems. Much of its time has been spent on rewriting the constitution, touted as a pre-requisite to ensure fairer administration under an elected system. No sooner the constitution was amended and made legal; it was solemnly promised that the 'deferred' 2009 AGM would be held.

AGM remains in limbo

Some two months ago, amendments to the constitution were proposed - and accepted at a Special General Meeting (SGM), but the vowed AGM remains in limbo. Clubs, provincial unions, indeed the rugby family, are entitled to feel they're being taken for a ride by an IC determined to not let go of the reins. "The rewriting of the constitution, the amendments, the SGMs, they are all ruses so that three individuals (Chairman Dr. Maiya Gunasekera, Secretary Kiran Atapattu and CEO Lasitha Gunaratne) can continue to control rugby,'' says a past SLRFU official. "If you ask me if all this suggests permanent ICs for rugby, then, I would have to say we're heading in that direction."

That permanent ICs might, with time, translate to dictatorial rule, however is least of rugby fears at this point in time. Let's face it; a bit of dictatorship, providing it instills greater discipline and fair-play into the sport's management, isn't such a bad thing, especially with rugby long blighted by the nasty rivalry born of club politics. The problem, however, is that the IRB doesn't recognise any body other than one that is democratically elected. And the IC isn't. Two IRB officials flew out here in March to specifically spell out that requirement to the Sport Ministry and IC officials. But all that was water down a duck's back.

The upshots: (1) IRB withdrew its Rs.14M. annual disbursement for development of Sri Lanka rugby; some 25 development officers stationed countrywide are without jobs and rural development lie abandoned. (2) the ARFU, the IRB's Asian arm, deny official status to the 2009 Singer/SriLankan Airlines International Sevens, a status the Kandy tournament enjoyed from 2004-2007. The 10-year tournament has been abandoned this year and Rs.7M. IRB funding for the event and hence a contribution to the national coffers is lost.

Job for the son

As if all that is not bad enough, the IC goes and surrenders Sri Lanka rugby's right to choose its own national captain. It will be recalled that the SLRFU selectors named one player to lead the country's Asian Five Nations campaign, but the Sport Ministry's panel of National Selectors appointed another, all because the father of the latter wanted the job for his son. What this says is that rugby selectors no longer have the final say on who is worthy or unworthy of a national jersey- if a father or mother thinks his/her son deserves to be captain/player, the wish will be granted.

And should there be more than one claim then the issue is apparently decided in favour of the claimant closest to the powers that be, as illustrated by the appointment of Pavithra Fernando over Dilanka Wijesuriya, the selectors' choice. Fernando's father is the head of the powerful National Olympic Council, a job that in the world of influence is a mile ahead of the chicken-farmer that Dilanka's papa is. In rugby's long history never has a year managed the dubious distinction of having outsiders decide who its national captain should be - and, for heaven's sake, kowtowing IC officials take the outsiders' decision without a whimper. Opposing, though, might mean losing their jobs with the IC, and the sort of gentleman-administrator, who would stand up in defense of the rugby union's long-held preserve, risking their seats of power, is, well, rare as oasis in the Sahara. 

So, for this endless administrative devilry, 2009 is not a year which one would want to look back with undiluted pleasure. Right? Not quite. Two weeks ago, 2009 would've unanimously been voted rugby's worst annus horribilis.

Enter Sri Lanka Navy

But then a bunch of doughty, but obscure, men from the Sri Lanka Navy comes along and dramatically and enthrallingly turns our rugby world inside out. Not since S. Sivenderan's policemen, as a 'B' division team, stormed into the 1967 Clifford Cup final, has any rugby season thrown up shocks as staggering as Navy did over the past two weeks. And suddenly, the yearlong misdeeds of the IC don't seem to matter any more.

A fortnight ago, the Welisera "upstarts'' stunned the second-best club in the country, 18/3, ending CR& FC's long-held yearning for championship honours. Having broken the dreams of the Colombo 7 club, the Navy then goes and ends champions Kandy SC's 60-match winning streak, spread over four seasons. And suddenly the champion club's chances of an eighth straight league title don't look so sure - an uncertainty they've not known for much of the past decade and half. Then, by the halfway stage of the season, the league trophy had as good as been locked away in the Nittwela cupboard - and the keys thrown away into the Mahaweli waters. That had been the prospect for the 2009 season too. But with the defeat at the hands of Navy, the champions will now have to win one of their two remaining league games - v. The Army and the CR - to retain the title.

Navy's achievements

In previous seasons accomplishing that task was a given, but this time round it's no dead-certainty. Army and the CR, for one thing, are no pushovers. But more importantly, the champion side faces a test it has never been subjected to since 2005 - how it will cope in defeat's hangover. The heart might wish that the 2009 will serve up a different league champion, but the head says, the champion of the past seven years will win it for the eighth time. Champion sides aren't disintegrated by one loss.   But Navy's awesome achievements in the league make the knockout title less certain for the champion club. After all, you can't disregard the Navy as a serious contender for the K/O title, given that they've overcome Kandy SC and the CR. So every prospect of the coming knockout pleases- so unlike the many K/Os since the early 1990s, which basically turned out to be ceremonial occasions for handing the silverware to Kandy SC. The sameness took away the crowds. The most meaningful impact of the Navy's giant-killing deeds, one hopes, would be the return to the spectator stands of rugby's missing legion. If that possibility eventuates, then, 2009 will be recalled by Navy's role in reigniting the flames of spectator interest, reduced to dying embers by the dominance of a single club for far too long. And to think that the team that made the transformation had been absent from competitive rugby for more than a few seasons, and their entry this season into the 'A' division had not been without objections. So, it's quite an extraordinary achievement by any measure. 

Critics, of course, will claim Navy's glory would not have been possible but for their unethical methods of recruitment. It is no secret that a majority of its players are civilians, not from its uniformed ranks, as had been the case from way-back-when. "I'm told that just two-three players are genuine navel men - the others are a collection of players from other clubs, mostly from the Havelocks,'' says an official, speaking anonymously, "you can accuse them of stealing others' talents, but not many clubs can claim to be lilywhite on that score either.''

Playing pirate

That the Navy has been playing pirate on other clubs' players during the season, however, has some legitimacy, as other clubs are taboo to do the same. But illegal it is not: all service teams are allowed mid-season recruitment. That it was a concession allowed in days of yore when services chose their teams from among their own personnel is another matter - or to be more precise, is an anomaly that ought to have been rectified when the play-for-pay scheme came in operation in the early 90s.

The part played by the presence of President's two sons in the Navy team (the younger as captain) in influencing recruitment cannot be over emphasised. The advantages are manifold for the joining players. So, it's much a case of "you call and I'll come'', as the overnight recruitment CR fly-half Dev Ananda illustrates: one week he was in CR's red jersey, the next, in white and navy-blue top. It is an unfair practice, but not beyond rectifying - provided the IC doesn't shows partiality to the Navy, something the IC didn't do when more than one complaint of on-field misconduct by Navy was put before the IC. The complaints were simply ignored. The wondrous deeds of Navy over the past two weeks show they can pretty well look after themselves - without any favours from the IC.