Arguments Against Televising Of Rugby Matches

Press, Volume C, Issue 29488, 14 April 1961, Page 21

Arguments Against Televising Of Rugby Matches

(From Our Own Reporter) WELLINGTON, April 13. “Televising of Rugby matches in Auckland could mean the eventual ruin of such unions as North Auckland, Counties, and Waikato. It could have evil and disastrous consequences,” said Mr T. H. Pearce (Auckland) at the annual meeting of the New Zealand Rugby Football Union today. Pressure was being put on the Rugby Union to declare its policy when the television authorities themselves had not established what they were going to do. he said.

The amount given by the New Zealand Broadcasting Service for the right to broadcast a full Rugby test series would hardly be enough to pay for stamps and stationery once the various unions had received their share, said Mr Pearce. "Yet they can afford to pay fat fees for a singer or a violinist for a couple of broadcasts,” he said. “Rugby owes nothing to television. Television might have something to offer us. We have got to make sure what is done is done not to hurt Rugby or impede its progress,” he said. “They have paid us only a pittance for years. We have never had any adequate recompense. "We have got to make it quite definite that our players are not going to be used to advertise someone's underwear, or a like article,” Mr Pearce said. At present, there was ‘ no panic about it,” but he personally was not in favour of the televising of Rugby matches until such time as it was discovered what the impact was going to be. “We don’t want to reach the stage where our young plavers are flashing their brilliance before empty stands, while a lot of women are peering at a 23-inch screen in a darkened room,' he said. Earlier, Mr C. S. Hogg and Mr J. V. Millard had discussed the consequence of television on Rugby. After Mr Pearce had spoken. Mr W. Bramwell (Hawke's Bay) moved: "That the matter of television be fully considered by the Rugby Union council, in due course all relative

data being referred to the union for its consideration, and that all negotiations on television, as with radio, be on a national basis." The motion was carried on the voices. Report On Television In Mr Pearce’s report of the All Blacks tow of Australia and South Africa, he said that television could not under any circumstances carry any monetary or popularising benefit to Rugby in New Zealand. The report said: “We had an opportunity in Sydney to see the effect oi television on Rugby. When New South Wales played Queensland, we saw the whole match on television. Certain, it is that some aspects of the game, notably line-outs, rucks, and scrums, televise well, but the other aspects of the game were too-closely bundled together. This had the effect of distorting the game, forcing the phases of play closer together, and making it appear slower than in reality. “The Australian officials are quite emphatic that it has helped their Rugby in popularity, in view of the greater interest in Rugby League and Australian rules. This may be quite true, but with the different conditions prevailing here. I am quite definite that television can convey no benefit to Rugby football. "On the contrary, it can bring uneconomic circumstances to small unions dependent on gates, and a sad lessening of income to the large unions. It could not under any circumstances carry any monetary or popularising benefit to Rugby here.

velopment that will not help Rugby here in any shape or form. It may not make a marked impression on the big international matches, hut it would make serious inroads into the game at club and representative level.”

"On the financial side, it could never pay enough, while on the playing side it would empty our grounds and deprive our players of the crowd impetus to which they are entitled. “The television of Rugby in New Zealand can bring only benefits to the television authorities. In my definite opinion, it Is one technical modern de-