'I rather the regulation bent or manipulated than a broken neck'

Worcester boss Steve Diamond has shared his latest thoughts on the Gallagher Premiership cancellation controversy with Gloucester, who are looking for compensation from the Warriors following the eleventh-hour call-off of the March 25 game at Kingsholm. An independent Sport Resolutions panel concluded in the verdict published on April 21 that Gloucester should be awarded a 20-0 victory and five match points from the cancelled fixture.

It was May 10, following the eventual publication of the full 26-page hearing verdict, when Gloucester stated they would be seeking compensation from Worcester. Included in the written judgement was a fascinating chain of correspondence - including a disagreement on what was allegedly said between the respective club owners - and the issue has still to be resolved by Premiership Rugby.

In the meantime, Diamond has defiantly defended Worcester who were accused of not doing enough amid a damaging illness/injury situation to ensure they had six available front-rowers to ensure the game went ahead. It remains his view that the Warriors did what they could in the circumstances.

“That was the mentality of what we tried to express to the panel,” he insisted. “Not only was there a huge virus in the place, but to use the term we didn’t pull our fingers out enough is what we have been accused of and it is grossly unfair.

“As someone who has been in the game as long as I have if people think you can ring another Premiership club up the day before and of the fixture and say, ‘Give us a tighthead, mate’ and every director of rugby in the comp will say, ‘Yeah, you can have him no problem’, near the end of the season when injuries are at their worst they are kidding themselves.

“What we did, as it said in the report, we went on the team manager’s WhatsApp group and only one team manager from one club replied to us. Maybe I should have done rung every director of rugby in the country and said, ‘Lend us your tighthead’ knowing that if someone rang me up the day before a game or of a game, as it was the case, I would say, ‘No, we haven’t’.

“If I have got a young kid that is 18, 19 years of age, I don’t want to put him against an international front row. If we get a broken neck then whose watch is it on? That is where I have been accused by journalists before of not having player welfare at the forefront but when you do have it at the forefront, you are pulled from pillar to post. There is no continuity.

“I was depressed after it to be fair. I was depressed. You do the right thing and you’re chastised for it. You live and learn, live and learn. No other club has gone for compensation in the past and we find ourselves in that position. No doubt the owners will be discussing that with Gloucester. Very disappointed, very disappointed.”

Continuing to reflect on what unfolded in the lead-up to the cancellation, Worcester boss Diamond added: “At one stage Gloucester were offering us one of their tightheads to play the game. Now can you imagine what ramifications that would have with anti-corruption, gambling? How can a player be employed by one club and play for another in the main competition in the country? You see what is happening in football with Everton avoiding relegation and Burnley and Leeds looking to go to the High Court over it. Disappointed but nothing surprises me sometimes if I am honest.

“In the same position again I would ring all the directors of rugby up, get told they don’t have anybody and that hopefully would be a reasonable outcome. But you have to remember this has never happened before. It’s such a unique situation that I don’t think will ever happen again.

“What people forget is I asked Gloucester and I asked the league would they be prepared to play that fixture on another day which there were plenty of days spare with the five weeks we have not played.

“We also said in this unique situation would you play the game with uncontested scrums and on both accounts we were told the regulations don’t allow that. So I would rather have the regulation could be bent or manipulated than a broken neck for an 18-year-old kid, but the powers that be don’t see it that way,” he said, adding that bringing a player in on an emergency loan anyway was unethical given the illness outbreak at the time at Worcester.

“For the safety of that person and the integrity of the game, I’m not a medic but even to bring somebody into the environment that day when 28 people were vomiting and had diarrhoea, in no other industry in the world would a medic say, ‘You can come into this office, don’t worry about this’.”