RANFURLY SHIELD MATCH

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21582, 19 September 1935, Page 7

RANFURLY SHIELD MATCH

TO THE BDITOB 01 TBS PK3BB Sir,~As one of the many spectators at Lancaster Park last Saturday afternoon who saw what appeared to (be a deliberate breach of the rules for the sake of winning the game, I wish to register my protest against the inaction of the management committee and its apparent intention to gloss over the matter. One reads a lot of the idea that "it is the game that counts and not the winning of it,' but apparently circumstances alter cases, and when Canterbury wants a win the sporting side is not so important. The fact that the breach of the rules really gave Canterbury rough and ready justice in securing to them the winning position that they had really obtained by Gaskin's try does not affect the ethics of the question. I was rather amused by the statement of your reporter that before the South Canterbury men were aware "of the strategy that Canterbury was exploiting," the try was gained. Rather an euphemistic way of referring to a breach of the rules, was it not? Would he also so refer to hitting below the belt in a boxing match when the referee was unable to see the blow. To my mind it appeared a deliberate infringement of the rules, and should be treated as such. If such a penalty was the fitting one the perpetrators should be put on the bank for the rest of the season. Only by some such action can such practices be stopped.— Yours, etc., A. WELLS NEWTON. Ohoka, September 18, 1935. [Our football writer has already replied to a similar letter, and there is no need again to traverse the ground.—Ed., "The Press."] TO THE IDITOH OV IKB P&BS9. Sir,—l thank your Rugby writer for his reply to my letter. We agree on the fact that the player who scored was standing only two or three yards from the touchline. My opinion is that the five yards line was clearly marked, and that the player should have satisfied himself tr*t he was not infringing. The offence was so flagrant that it was seen by hundreds; the referee, because of his position, could not detect it.

My point is that no strategy should be exploited which infringes the rules and relies on the referee not detecting it for its success. There are too many tactics of that description employed in football to-day, and so far as I am concerned they are a blot on the game. I saw several exploited by both sides on Saturday last; the referee could not be blamed for failing to detect them all. Refereeing is a thankless job; but players could help a referee by refraining from the use of tactics which are unfair. There are many infringements which are not deliberate, but there are too many deliberate infringements, and they are not cricket.—Yours, etc., SPECTATOR. September 18, 1935.

TO THE SDITOB 07 THB TBKB3. Sir,—l was one of the early spectators at Lancaster Park on Saturday last to witness the fourth Ranfurly Shield encounter c: the season. A lot has been said and written about the match, the play, the players, and particularly the final try which enabled the holders to retain the coveted trophy. A number of people stoutly contend that the challengers were literally "diddled" out of a win, and also assert that the man with the whistle did not know his job and let the Green and Blacks down badly. The unsportsmanlike behaviour of a group of spectators towards this gentleman at the conclusion of the game certainly substantiates this contention. For this match I occupied a seat as near as it was possible to get to the field of play, and if I had only half nn eye I could not have failed to see the illegal tactics resorted to by our robust visitors. In my opinion the challengers were a combination of obstructionists. They did not hesitate to N ut it across the local lads at every

opportunity, and when they were caught now and then and justly penalised—what a howl! Those line-outs and scrums! What an orgie of malpractices, and I unhesitatingly contend that the challengers were absolutely the chief offenders. Pushing in the back, indiscriminate use of elbows, arm, and jersey holding in the former and feet well advanced and often up in the latter. A man sitting close to me remarked: "There is something queer going on in that scrum." He was right, there was. The visitors obtained the ball nine times out of 10 simply because they were seldom obliged to do. their stuff fairly to get it. In the pill would go—perhaps—out she would come, but the local lads never had it. Really, it was a crying shame to think that they could put it across with such monotonous regularity. A lot has been said about the fiveyard ?r from the hurriedly formed lineout, but I wonder how many saw the choice bit of obstruction that enabled the visitors to score their second try? The oncoming Canterbury forward tent on laying hands on the ultimate scorer was not permitted to achieve his object. A Green and Black jersey flashed into the picture and he never reached his man—not by a long chalk. When this would-be tackier recovered from the staggering effects of the obviously designed and faked collision, the bird hac flown, and next minute Canterbury were five points in the cart. That try should never have been allowed, and the perpetrator of this breach of the rules was fortunate indeed that the referee's view of the incident was obscured. Canterbury won, but the margin of victory would have been considerably larger if the challengers' persistently unfair tactics had been jarred by a few more opportunities for Deavoll to do his stuff. What promised to be a real game was utterly spoiled, and it is to be hoped that next Saturday's match will be kept free from such illegalities.—Yours, etc., OBSERVANT. September 18, 1935.