In a controversial development for the SAS rugby program, the past year has seen not only a shift in playing style from contact to touch rugby but also the departure of a seasoned coach, Mr. Pardy. However, Mr. Pardy has made it clear that his decision to step away from coaching isn’t directly linked to the program’s transition to touch rugby.

Mr. Pardy clarified his stance, stating, “It’s not a touch thing.” He shares, “You got to buy in that on the surface rugby’s changed, but it’s still the game. And a true lover of playing isn’t going to complain if they are not playing tackle or if they’re not playing touch. If you enjoy the team aspect of throwing the ball and just being on the field with people that make the sport — that’s what it’s about.”

Rather, he attributed his departure to a broader shift in the way players have approached the game under the evolving dynamics of rugby. He observes a change in students’ approach, noting, “I see students approaching the sport in an incredibly individualistic way, and therefore their collective play is not getting better because they play as a loose confederation of individuals.” This observation raises significant questions about the program’s future trajectory if this trend remains unaddressed.

Mr. Harris, a former rugby coach, provides a counterpoint to Mr. Pardy’s perspective. In response to the changes in the rugby program, Mr. Harris shares, “Well, I don’t actually think it’s changed. That’s the thing. I don’t think contact rugby has changed to touch rugby. I think the two sports are completely different. I don’t see them as having any relationship at all except the ball…I think touch rugby and contact rugby are as different from baseball to cricket.” Is the shift from contact to touch rugby more profound and distinct than some perceive it to be?

Continuing the discourse on the evolving nature of rugby within the SAS program, Mr. Harris inquires into a potential double standard or hypocrisy prevailing within the sporting world, “When it comes to rugby, I’m just wondering if we, being an American school, if we had American football here, would we have done the same? Would we have been so quick to put up our hands and vote contact rugby out of existence?”

The swift inclination to “raise our hands and vote contact rugby out of existence” prompts a deeper consideration of the decision-making process. Are these choices rooted in a sincere dedication to player safety, or do they signify a reactive response to emerging concerns?

Mr. Harris envisions a formidable journey ahead for the SAS rugby program, acknowledging, “It’ll be a long struggle. But once the ghosts of contact are gone, they might have a better chance. But at this moment in time, the ghost of contact is still there and people are comparing contact rugby to touch rugby, and they are not comparable…we’re too close to the transition for people to actually see the difference.”

Can the rugby program thrive amid these clashing opinions on its identity, or is this the onset of its downfall?