Water polo battle in KZN court

Durban High School's water polo coach Jean le Roux will face a disciplinary hearing after he assaulted an opposing team player.

Durban High School's water polo coach Jean le Roux will face a disciplinary hearing after he assaulted an opposing team player.

Published Jan 16, 2015

Share

Durban - Water polo wars – with allegations of “brutality”, jealousy and fierce competition – have been laid bare in a court battle which has pitted the coach of a leading Durban high school against coaches of rival schools and the sport’s provincial organising body.

Jean le Roux, who has played the sport at provincial and national level and is the head coach at Durban High School, has launched an urgent application in the Durban High Court, seeking an order overturning a decision by KwaZulu-Natal Aquatics to suspend him pending the outcome of a disciplinary inquiry into alleged violent behaviour during a league match last year.

Le Roux said the suspension, which means he cannot play or coach at league or provincial level, was unfair, that he was being punished without being found guilty, and it was being orchestrated by the head coach of rival school Glenwood Boys’ High to get him out of the way, eliminating the competition.

Attorney Dunstan Farrell, who acts for the affiliated KwaZulu-Natal Water Polo, said Le Roux’s application would be “vigorously opposed” in court on Monday.

Le Roux was reportedly often in trouble in the pool and, in his affidavit, conceded that water polo was a rough contact sport.

The incident which got him into hot water through alleged “brutality” and “bringing the sport into disrepute” happened during a first-division match in the annual league at Clifton School’s Aquatic Centre at the end of October last year.

Le Roux said he had a “valid defence” to the charge that he punched a player of the opposing side “because I did so in defence of the players in my team”.

In the water that day were DHS Old Boys and the Clifton Mackerels, both undefeated.

Le Roux said in contrast to the Clifton team, his team, in spite of its name, consisted mainly of schoolboys who, while not expecting special treatment, were not yet physically mature enough to defend themselves against any assault.

For this reason, the tactic was to play with “long arms”, keeping a distance from those more skilled, and play a game involving a lot of swimming to tire out the older players.

In the fourth (final) chukka, his boys were leading 12-8.

Le Roux said he was sitting on the bench, shouting instructions, when he saw a Clifton player, in his mid-20s, in an altercation with one of his young players. The same player then choked another young member of his team and, when a teammate tried to assist, he was also attacked, punched and kicked by the older player.

In his opinion, the referee, Glenwood coach Steve la Marque, had “lost control”, so he jumped in and punched the Clifton player twice.

The game had to be abandoned with coaches and parents hurling abuse at each other.

He and the Clifton player were suspended – the Clifton player pleaded guilty and received a two-match suspension.

Le Roux said La Marque – with whom he had been at odds for a long time – was involved in his disciplinary process and wanted him suspended for as long as possible.

This was because this year, it was likely that Clifton – the school leading the provincial log – was susceptible because its best players had now matriculated. This presented an opportunity for other schools to grab top spot.

“I have built a young and mostly successful first DHS team who, in their last match, drew against Clifton. I believe that if it were not for DHS’s success under my coaching, this matter would have been resolved long ago.

“The disciplinary committee, for the most part, consists of coaches and parents from our immediate competitors and it is in their interests that I be removed as coach or that DHS’s participation in the league be hampered as much as possible,” he said.

In correspondence attached to the court papers, it is noted that Le Roux was to be offered a “settlement” of one year’s suspension and that he must attend an anger management course, but he rejected this.

The earliest date for his hearing is the end of next month. This, he said, meant he would miss the entire league season.

“I will have served a suspension for four months, in excess of any sanction which would be imposed anyway,” he said.

The Mercury

Related Topics: