Ottley, who had played 154 games, and Maui, who had 127 caps under his belt, were deemed to have not met the eligibility requirements.
The union had advised the Havelock North club that if the team fielded the pair in the semifinal "they would risk a protest and likely lose it".
"Havelock North RFC, despite being strongly advised not to do so and warned of the potential consequences, played these two ineligible players in its semifinal victory over Hastings Rugby and Sports RFC," the HBRU had reportedly said in a statement in August.
HBRFU chief executive Mike Bishop, who was holidaying in Adelaide yesterday, forwarded Hawke's Bay Today to board chairman Brendan Mahony, who did not return calls after messages were left on his phones.
However, in August, the union had apologised to the other Madison Trophy participants and, in particular, to Hastings club "for not enforcing rule 7c in attempting to find a solution to Havelock North AFC's obvious breach of the rules".
Under the clauses of the competition rules, the villagers should have been banned from playing in the Madison Trophy final for disregarding rule 7c, which stipulates: "Any club playing unregistered players will forfeit the match and the maximum points [5] awarded to the opposing team."
Napier Pirate beat Havelock North 19-16 in the final although the latter didn't field the two players at the centre of dispute. However, it is understood Havelock North believe "there are lessons to be learned and several grey areas round those rules".
At the crux of the villagers' case is that they had registered the two players on the Friday before the semifinal although "they should have been on the database before the semifinals".
The Hastings club felt the champions should have claimed the bragging rights by default.
Club spokesman Mark Sowman yesterday said Hastings weren't banking on a financial punishment because clubs were "struggling".
"To openly flout the rules," Sowman said, after the club was told of the consequences meant Havelock should never have been allowed to play in the final although "they might have won without the two players, who knows?"
He said the whole saga was unfair on Ottley and Maui as well.
"It's not grey. To me it's black and white," he said, adding HBRFU emails were sent out religiously to clubs to submit their teams on Thursday deadlines to enable player scrutiny.
Sowman said the two players' names, with three other players from other grades, had cropped up in the spot checks.
"We've been caught in spot checks. In the database we've had five names [with variations] with five different birth dates so things happen.
"To me there's no excuse for not putting it [team sheet] in," he said, revealing Hastings police player documentation religiously on Tuesday/Thursday training nights.
The edict, Sowman said, was on HBRFU, who were aware of the discrepancy but hadn't enforced it.
Hastings weren't aware of the two ineligible players until after the game on Monday.
Even on the Monday when the club approached HBRFU on the players concerned it declined to confirm the discrepancy.
Sowman said every other club, bar Havelock North, were disappointed HBRFU hadn't acted on it.
At a meeting, "all of them were after blood on all sorts of issues" but Hastings had emphasised they were there to address the ineligibility matter and some sort of punishment was necessary as a deterrent.
"You've got to be seen to be dealt with especially if you're deliberately flouting the rules.
"If it was the NRL or soccer then you'd definitely not be playing in the final and you would be fined," he said.
Some pundits feel Havelock should have more points docked off the Madison Trophy competition rather than the Nash Cup and they should take the punishment on the chin.
Sowman said Hastings bore no grudges against Havelock North but felt the punishment shouldn't become farcical to the detriment of the code.
"We have plans to play a pre-season game against Havelock."
