THE SHIELD OR THE GAME

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21577, 13 September 1935, Page 18

THE SHIELD OR THE GAME

RUGBY'S BEST TROPHY

EXPLOITED gTNFORTUNATE NORTH ISLAND ATTITUDE To some of the so-called stalwarts of the Rugby code in New Zealand the Ranfurly Shield looms larger than the game itself. The judgment of some of the leading Rugby officials of New Zealand—all in the North Island—has been so warped by an obvious desire to keep the Ranfurly Shield as a money-maker for a few of the major anions—again, preferably in the North island—that some drastic action I should be taken by those major and minor unions who still have some appreciation of the value of Rugby football as an amateur sport. Is proof wanted? For years the North Island officials have indicated by word and action that they must have the Ranfurly Shield or they pine for it until peevishness and anger—aoger at the thought of minor Unions' Rugby being stimulated by participation in Ranfurly Shield fixtures—lead to harsh, unpleasant outbursts. In recent years Canterbury .has been the victim of unjustified outbursts from the so-called responsible officials both of the New Zealand. Union and other unions which are a disgrace to Rugby and which would be a disgrace to any amateur sport.

At the last meeting of the New Zealand Rugby Union, both Mr W. J. Wallace, a member of the union, and Mr A. E. Neilson, its secretary, made allegations against the Canterbury Rugby Union for its treatment of shield challenges. There also has been some sharp criticism in the North Island of Canterbury's decision not to play Ranfurly Shield matches on Wednesdays. The contention is that it is too much to ask a provincial representative team to play Saturday-Wed-nesday—Saturday matches throughout the Ranfurly Shield programme. Mr Adams Sums Up

Mr Alan A. Adams, a New Zealand selector, and a former president of the New Zealand Rugby Union, was outspoken during the recent visit of the West Coast team to Canterbury. He said: "Some unions in the North Island think that there are very few i.tinions in the South Island which 'should be allowed to challenge for the Ranfurly Shield. I am not going to beat about the bush. I think their attitude is entirely wrong. - For instance,, the West Coast has proved that it is capable of making a good showing in a shield match—just as good as that of any North Island union. Why any North Island union should think it has a prior right I do not know. The Ranfurly Shield was never intended to be exploited in that way." Mr Adams congratulated the Canterbury Union on its attitude to the Ranfurly Shield and on its record of procedure while holding it. The Canterbury Union was to be congratulated on giving minor unions an equal chance. Mr Adams was right. Canterbury has dealt extremely fairly with all challengers and in this respect has a record which should be recognised by every other union in New Zealand. The Canterbury Union has never entered a special challenge for the shield -except on one occasion and then only at the special resquest of the province holding the trophy—Hawkes Bay. Fixtures have been kept always. If the shield has happened to be in the path of Canterbury on tour, opportunity has been taken, to play for it. Points For Sound Policy

There are certain points of Ranfurly Shield policy that should be recognised by all the unions in the Dominion. A province holding the shield should be compelled to adhere to its representative programme for the season as decided at the annual meeting of the New Zealand Rugby Union. That is to say, that no special rearrangement should ever be made which gives a major union a prior right to a minor or minor-major union. No province should play more than one match a week for the shield. The day should never come when representative Rugby teams are compelled to play three matches within eight days simply because a trophy in an amateur sport is being commercialised. No union making a special challenge ghould have its challenge ratified until it is able to show that it has kept faith with the provincial match programme mapped out at the beginning of the season. Of course certain rearrangements are always possible under which no harm is done to any of the unions concerned, but the onus must be on the challenger to prove this to the satis Taction of the New" Zealand Rugby Union. No union which loses the shield should to make a special challenge for.it again in the season in which it lost" it. Minor asud major unions should have equal rights... Value to- Minor Unions The experience ln;.the South Island has proved beyond a shadow of doubt what a tremendous amount of good can be done for Rugby in minor unions' districts when they are given opportunities of playing in Ranfurly Shield fixtures. If this lesson has not been learned by the New Zealand Rugby Union then one of the greatest catastrophies in Rugby in recent years has ©ccurred. Many will argue that the Ranfurly Shield has a bad influence simply because it is the means of attracting large crowds, and thereby filling the coffers of the particular union which happens to be holding the shield. The argument is false. The money provided from shield matches can be used within a very wide scope to benefit greatly all branches of Rugby. The beam is in the eye of certain Rugby legislators in the North Island. It will take New Zealand people a long time to forget the names of those unions associated, during, the last 10 years with the trafficking in players in an effort to secure the best Rugby players available in New Zealand and St will also take more than barbed ■end prejudiced North Island criticism ito convince the South Island supporters of Rugby that the Ranfurly Shield has been commercialised by the Canterbury Rugby Union. It has not Canterbury's administration of Rugby might well be taken as a model by many «unions. Its legislators re r member that Rugby is an amateur game and that its amateur aspect is more precious than gold and silver. If Canterbury has been lucky enough to surprise North Island critics by winning the Ranfurly Shield in the ordinary course of its representative programme it is exceedingly bad taste for officials of the New Zealand Rugby Union, the Wellington Rugby Union, or any other union to announce,publicly and vindictively their bitter chagrin. Admittedly Wellington is not having a run of good fortune with shield matches, but sympathy for it would have come Si r ? adil y « Wellington officials could accept ill-fortune with good —THANE