RUGBY COMMITTEE DISCUSSES CHALLENGE FOR SHIELD

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29179, 13 April 1960, Page 26

RUGBY COMMITTEE DISCUSSES CHALLENGE FOR SHIELD

Charges that the Auckland Rugby Unicm would have been happy to play Canterbury during its northern tour this year had Auckland not held the Ranfurly Shield, and that Auckland had its representative programme arranged before the annual fixtures meeting and was not prepared to alter it, were made by members of the Canterbury Rugby Union’s management committee last evening when the union’s representative programme for the season was under discussion. Canterbury will tour the Auckland area of the North Island between August 10 and August 20. and its delegates to the annual meeting were instructed to apply for an ordinary challenge against Auckland during the tour. Canterbury was granted the last challenge of the year as a special fixture, and as it has not been Canterbury’s policy to issue special challenges, the acceptance of this fixture provoked a short but pointed discussion. The Canterbury delegates had encountered some unexpected difficulties and the result was that Canterbury had now to undertake a heavier representative programme than was intended, said the president (Mr H. C. Blazey) in presenting his report. “The first problem was the fixing of a suitable date for a Ranfurly Shield challenge with Auckland. We expected to play Auckland on tour whether it held the shield or

not. In our view, such a match was a normal tour fixture,” he said, “When w’e discussed the matter with the Auckland delegates we were informed they were fully booked during the time of our tour. We offered to play them any time in August and we would arrange our tour to suit. The discussions were protracted and the result was we could not fix a match in August, but were offered a special challenge on September 28. After discussing the matter among ourselves we decided to accept it,” he said. Long Negotiations

The negotiations with Auckland took much longer than expected and it was then found, when the delegates went to complete the fixtures, that Hawke's Bay and Wanganui had arranged their southern tours up to the Canterbury matches, and that we had to accept Wednesday fixtures for both, said Mr Blazey. The negotiations with Wellington and Otago were very cordial and both were eager to implement the scheme to play more regularly. Arrangements were made to play home and away matches this season but no one was committed to this arrangement beyond this season. It would be reviewed in the light of commitments. next season, he said. More frequently matches were also sought with Waikato. The side was not due to play Canterbury until 1962, but Waikato was invited to come to Canterbury for a match next season as well, and this would be discussed at next year's fixtures meeting, he said.

“Under the circumstances, we did not discuss more frequent fixtures with Auckland,” said Mr Blazey. This year, the committee should make sure that all the players selected for the representative squad were available to travel, and should ask the selectors, in view of the heavy programme, that all the members of the squad should play a reasonable number of games so that the players were not over-burdened by too many matches, said Mr Blazey. The committee could also consider allocating more games to the B team. “If Auckland loses the shield do we still play them in September,” asked Mr J. Storey. President’s Comment When he was leaving the meeting, the president of the Auckland union (Mr T. H. Pearce) spoke to him and said he wished to emphasise that even if the shield left Auckland, Auckland still would like to play the game on September 28 at its expense, said Mr A. K. Johnson. “Do we need to decide on that now?” asked Mr H. C. Blazey. Voices: No.

Mr, Storey: I presume Auckland was aware that we were travelling north this year? Mr H. C. Blazey: Yes, they were aware of it. I understand it was left to Southland to write to North Island unions the times we would be touring north, and that was done. The Waikato delegates had this letter on file at the fixture meeting. I cannot imagine why Auckland did not know, unless they forgot. Mr R. R. Masters asked if any approach had been made by Canterbury to the New Zealand council in connexion with its unsuccessful ordinary challenge while it was on tour? There was nothing in the rules to say that a challenge must be accepted, said Mr Blazey. “But the council has the right, in the case of a dispute to make a decision,” said Mr Blazey. If Canterbury had not been offered the special challenge then there could have been a dispute, but a special fixture had been offered, said Mr Blazey. “This is not according to the unwritten law, is it?” Mr Masters asked. “It has always been the custom for unions making major tours to be given preference over those unions which can be fitted in at some other time.”

Mr H. C. Blazey: I agree that is the usual custom.

“Two years ago we went out of our way to help Auckland by going backwards and forwards across the North Island,” said Mr W. C. Dailey. “The whole thing in a nutshell is that if Auckland did not have the Ranfurly Shield then it would have been happy to have us on tour,’’ raid Mr R. W. Blazey. In reply to a question from Mr Storey, Mr H. C. Blazey said an early approach was made to Auckland for an ordinary challenge, and discussions were held over a period of two hours. Mr Storey: Then it looks as if Auckland had its programme arranged before the meeting. Mr J. O. Hattersley: Auckland had decided who it would play and who it would not, and it was not prepared to alter it. It had not been Canterbury’s policy to make special challenges and he considered the committee as a whole had the power either to ratify this fixture or not. said Mr C. H. Phail. “We have never chased a special challenge. This time it was chucked at us. We were told by this committee to arrange a Ranfurly Shield challenge. It was not us that suggested a special challenge,” said Mr R. W. Blazey. “I think our delegates have done the job they were appointed to do,” said Mr R. W. Thomas. “You have obviously drawn your conclusions on this matter, and I will make no further comment,” said Mr H. C. Blazey. The programme was approved.