RANFURLY SHIELD

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26204, 30 August 1950, Page 6

RANFURLY SHIELD

No Match With North Auckland CANTERBURY’S DECISION

By a unanimous vote the management committee of the Canterbury Rugby Union last evening declined to arrange a mid-week match with North Auckland for the Ranfurly Shield. As the outcome of the North Auckland Rugby Union’s representations to the New Zealand Rugby Union that its challenge, previously declined by Canterbury, be allowed to stand, the chairman (Mr R. R. Masters) reported that the New Zealand union had,resolved that Canterbury should be strongly urged to arrange a mid-week fixture with North Auckland. The resolution mentioned that the programme that Canterbury had in front of it for September was only a normal one. The meeting had before it a copy of the memorandum sent to the New Zealand Union by the North Auckland Union* N.Z. Union’s Ruling Mr Masters said he had had a telephone call from the chairman of the management committee of the New Zealand Rugby Union (Mr A. St. C. Belcher). The committee had concluded that North Auckland had no claim to a match on September 30. Buller's application for this date had been in first and Canterbury was advised to accept Buller’s application for the date. *“So all Saturdays in September are booked in compliance with the requirements of the Ranfurly Shield regulations,” continued Mr Masters. “Whether we are prepared to plav Wednesday matches or not is over to us.” Mr Masters said that the representative team had gone into training early in May with the visit of the British Isles team in view, and he personally felt it would be too much to accept a Wednesday challenge at this .stage. Though the programme ahead might be a normal one, said Mr Masters, the season had not been a normal one for representative players. In subsequent discussion among members some of the points made to the New Zealand Union by North Auckland were dealt with. North Auckland had urged that shield challenges should be more equally distributed among North and South Island teams. It was stated that if Otago had retained the shield it would have faced five challenges frorrr North Island teams and two from South Island teams. Weaknesses in Case “Their letter does not bear close scrutiny,” said Mr V. L. Jensen, referring to the North Auckland statement that Canterbury had won the shield in a Wednesday game. There was. he said, no comparison between a ■ special challenge on a Wednesday and Canterbury playing while on a tour. The only Saturday Canterbury was not playing in Christchurch was the occasion of the North v. South Island match, he continued, and on that day the representative team would be in Wellington. “We should not set ourselves up to decide the merits of one challenge game as against another.” said Mr Jensen, who mentioned that two other unions—Taranaki and Wanganui— had challenges in for Wednesdays before North Auckland. On the motion of Mr R. W. Blazey, the committee declined to arrange a mid-week match with North Auckland. It was decided that in notifying the No’-th Auckland and New Zealand Unions of its decision, the union should set out its reasons.