THE CORNWELL CUP.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 29, 4 February 1928, Page 17

THE CORNWELL CUP.

THE DISPUTED DECISION.

A REPLY TO CRITICISM,

RULES OF THE RACE

(By O. MOLLER, Chairman Cormvcll Contest Sailing Committee.)

My attention has been drawn" to the articles appearing in the "Dunedin Evening Star" on the 23rd instant and also to the report of the meeting of the Otago Yacht and Motor Boat Association on the 27th. Otago is certainly fortunate that Mr. Paul was not the delegate at the Cornwell Cup contest or the public would have heard of an amazing display of "the true sporting spirit," as the phrase is interpreted by the Hon. J. T. Paul. Perhaps if this gentleman had been the manager of the Otago cricket team that team would have been ordered to leave the field and to return home owing to dissatisfaction with a decision by an umpire. In t>« words of the "Evening Star": "Really Mr. Paul." However, both Mr. Bewley and the Otago crew acted in a manner that did them great credit. There is no doubt that both were keenly disappointed, yet both carried on in accordance with the best of all sporting traditions. It must, however, be particularly galling to Mr. Bewley to hear the criticism by the Hon. J. T. Paul and his little coterie, including "For'ard Hand," and to have to submit to a cross-examination for the avowed purpose of showing that he, Mr. Bewley "had been a party to a flagrant flouting of the rules of yachting and fair play," to perpetrate "a robbery." I cannot hope to show Mr. Paul and his little coterie that the manner in which the Cornwell Cup Contest Committee has been criticised shows an absence of good taste, but I hope to show him that his remark? arc based on false premises, and that his logic is defective. I pity him for the first, I supply the true facts to correct the second, and I furnish the true conclusion to help him with the third.

The facts are that Auckland, having been fouled by Canterbury, was compelled to retire through defective rigging at a time when they had, a reasonable chance of winning. This finding was a unanimous decision, although several attempts have been made to show that Auckland could have carried on, did carry on, and had no chance of winning. On the question of Auckland's chance of winning, the record of the race shows that she was 33s behind Otago at the Northcote mark, where the collision occurred. If anyone doubts that she had a reasonable chance of winning he should refer to the results of all raccs.

Although the Auckland boat was second at the time her position was immaterial, provided she had a reasonable chance of winning. When considering this matter it should be remembered that the Cornwell Crip is unique, in that it is a contest betwean crews, not boats, and it is, therefore, only natural that certain special rules would be necessary. Moreover, in all special contests there arc special rules. The racing rules of the contest, therefore, provide:—"The contests shall be sailed under the Y.R.A. rules, with such modifications as the committee in each case shall decide. Failing any decision of the committee to the contrary the following modifications to the Y.R.A. rules shall apply:—l. Not applicable; 2. not applicable; 3. boat not to be interfered with, and no person to leave or join a boat during the race; 4. to 9. not applicable.

Now this rule was inserted as an addition to the Y.R.A. rules after mature consideration of the latter, yet Mr. Paul, in his great wisdom, dismisses the rule from consideration by saying that it is meaningless and absurd. It is obvious that the rule would not have been inserted if the Y.R.A. rules covered the point, and as the Y.R.A. rules provide for disqualification of any offending boat (rule 35) some other purpose was intended, especially as interference might be brought about by boats which are not competitors.

In the opinion of the committee, therefore, the rule was meant to cover that very wide class of interference which, though not necessarily a foul, would result in any crew through no fault of their own being deprived of all chances of winning through the act of another. Any rule to cover such a wide matter must of necessity be general in its terms. That there is » wide range of matters not specifically covered by the Y.R.A. rules is clear from rule 1, which states so explicitly. The committee, therefore, decided that it has power to adjudicate on the incident in a fuller manner than mere disqualification of the offending boat, as disqualification followed as a matter of course. The committee's decision then amounted to this, namely, that as Otago by superior speed and skill had beaten all the 1 other crews in this race except Auckland, which was deprived of all chance of winning by the foul, and since the object was to find the two best boys, the Otago crew should show that they could beat the Auckland crew before being considered the champions. Mr. Paul states that a resail under rule 40 is between all tlio competitors except the boat causing the accident, but he should read the rule before venturing his opinion, as the rule implicity says:

"They shall order the race to be resailed, if possible, between such yacht or yachts (viz. the yacht or yachts injuring its or their chance of winning by rendering assistance to those in peril), and the winner of such prize, otherwise the race shall be void and the entrance fees returned." By analogy from this rule it would, therefore, have been wrong to permit any boat not affected by the incident to take part in the resail. Furthermore, if all boats had been permitted to resail Otago would indeed have been penalised, whereas as it was she was given credit for having beaten all the other boats except Auckland.

Furthermore, I •would like to say that the personnel of the Contest Committee was Messrs. Lidgard (Hawke's Bay), Duncan (Wellington), Collins (Canterbury), Carter (Tauranga), Wilson (Manukau), Pickmere (Whangarei), Bewley (Otago), Moller (Auckland). The first six gentlemen are practical yachtsmen at the present time, and all have held administrative positions for years in the sport of yachting. To these men the intention of the rule was clear and they acted accordingly. "For'ard Hand" suggests that the northerners intended to win by every means, and by making this suggestion he has not only abandoned all pretence of good taste, but has overlooked that the committee was an impartial body, comprising a rperesentative from each province.

With, regard to the suggestion of taking the matter to the Y.R.A. the conference, composed of one -'delegate from

every competing port, after careful consideration of all the facts and rules have made what they consider a just decision. The conference is disbanded, and the decision is therefore final. However, as the matter is of such public interest, and may crop up in the future, no doubt the Takapuna Boating Club would assist in obtaining a ruling for the guidance of future conferences, who doubtless would take notice of any ruling given.

Wc have read so many amazing statements, many of them not founded on fact, that I am constrained to ask who are these gentlemen who hold themselves so much to the fore as "authorities" able to criticise so completely a committee of expert yachtsmen (hot armchair critics) who have been and are fostering this contest? What, I ask, has "For'ard Hand" clone in the past? Let those interested look up his yachting notes previous to the cup races, and they will be able to size up this socalled authority. As for Mr. Paul, be certainly is the chairman of the Otago Yacht and Motor Boat Association, but does his record in the sport of yachting allow of Jiis sweeping statements regarding a decision arrived at by experts in the game. Otago sent a worthy delegate to look after their interests, but we find his judgment is passed over as worthless. Take away the criticisms 6f Mr. Paul and "For'ard Hand" and what is left? I say by the rules available, by the evidence and knowledge of what the Cornwell Cup stands for, the decision was correct in every way.