Ban On Player Upheld

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31385, 2 June 1967, Page 14

Ban On Player Upheld

AUCKLAND, May 31. A complaint that the Rugby Football League acted illegally in refusing a former international footballer permission to play professionally in Australia has been dismissed in Auckland by Mr Justice Perry.

The plaintiff, Gary Charles Blackler, is a former Canterbury player and member of the Kiwis team. He left the country in 1964 and is now an Australian citizen. When the case was heard in the Supreme Court on March 21 Blackler alleged that the league’s refusal to grant a clearance prevented him from earning his living. He also maintained that the refusal was illegal, and that there had been a miscarriage of justice because the league

failed to give him a personal hearing. The league’s president, Dr. Leo Joseph Cooney, said at the time that permission had been granted to other players, but only in exceptional circumstances. A rule passed in 1956 said that special consideration would be given to footballers

who had played in the New Zealand league for more than six years, but Blackler did not qualify. Dr. Cooney said that if permission were granted, it would establish a precedent and the league would lose international control over its senior representative players. In his judgment, his Honour said there was no other way in which the league could avoid having its top players drained off by the attraction of professional football. "For a young man embarking on life, the attraction of being able to pursue his normal occupation, and at the same time turn his hobby to financial advantage, would be almost irresistible,” he said. “This position is so obvious that it can only be met by a refusal to give a general or unconditional clearance, otherwise he would be free to join a professional club.” He emphasised that the ban was not total, and Mr Blackler would still be able to play for an amateur club.

The league’s action was reasonable and necessary for the protection of its control over the game in this country. In refusing the application, it had acted both within its power and within the rules.