THE AUCKLAND VIEW.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 86, 11 April 1922, Page 7

THE AUCKLAND VIEW.

AN EMPHATIC CRITICISM. The Auckland view of the situation was expressed in decided terms to a '"Star" representative by Mr. T. Buchanan, well-known in Taranaki and Auckland provinces as an active Rugby enthusiast, and an official of the Auckland Rugby Union. "It is little wonder," said Mr. Buchanan, "that unions continually complain of the management of football by the parent body when such crass ignorance and conservatism exists as is Known in tiie attitude of the Wellington Rugby Union. Being in such close touch with the Xew Zealand union it is natural to assume that the Wellington union would be au fait with that body's views, but apparently their memories are short when they carry a resolution to be moved at the annual meeting this month that permission be refused to any union to play the modified kick into" touch rule. In the football world of New Zealand—outside of Wellington—everyone interested is aware that the English Rugby Union granted permission to Auckland to play that rule, and further gave power to the N.Z. Union to permit of any other union, on application, adopting the same rule, but poor benighted Wellington has not yet heard the news, though it is somewhat ancient history now." The mover of the motion, he continued, made a very strong appeal for support, going so far as to say that even with the risk of a split with Auckland, the X.Z.R.F. Union should take the firm stand. Evidently he did not quite realise Auckland's provincial strength in the football domain. otherwise his remarks would have been more guarded. Probably something like thirty per cent of the Dominion's footballers are within the Auckland province, and the loss of such a number would not be very helpful to the X.Z.R.F.U. Reading between the lines it looks as if the mover were desirous of Auckland seceding, but the responsible management of the local union had no such ideas, unless the position was made impossible fur them. It was further quite evident that the speaker responsible fc«r the resolution was not very particular regarding the correctness of a statement; which probably bore considerable weight with his fellow members. To impress on them the fact that the rule was not a good one, he said that "New South Wales had decided against it" (according to a telegraphed report), whilst on the same evening, at its annual meeting, the Cf.S.W. body unanimously decided to adopt the rule. "How the Wellington union can make their story fit in with actual facts," said Mr. Buchanan, "is a task that will take some doing. Auckland is extremel-.-fortunate in having had these two diametrically opposed statements placed side by side at the one time. It also show s to what extent Wellington will unfairly oppose Auckland." He felt that the attitude of Auckland's delegate was, to say the least of it. "very milky." He had a full knowledge of the position locally, and knew Auckland's wishes, but failed to support them, in fact voted for the resolution. His attitude would require explanation, and that should be asked for immediately, otherwise he would be an opponent and not a confrere with the [local delegates at the annual meeting.