“FIDDI-DUDDIES” CRITICISED Plan For League Rugby Rejected

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31907, 7 February 1969, Page 13

“FIDDI-DUDDIES” CRITICISED Plan For League Rugby Rejected

(Special Correspondent N.Z.P.A.) LONDON. “Committee fuddy-duddies frightened of losing control of an increasingly-popular game” have been castigated by British newspapers for the refusal of the English Rugby Union to allow the organisation of sponsored league Rugby in England.

The* standard of British Rugby, particularly at club level, is poor. Most people, with the interest of the game at heart, agree that the standard would rise with the introduction of a proper competition.

In the last few weeks the English Rugby world has heard stories about an organisation which has offered to sponsor a league competition. Hopes were raised that perhaps the game would reach a higher plane.

But these were dashed this week when the English Rugby Union rejected sponsorship or any new form of competition, the union would much rather have the game played on the present informal basis where clubs get together and arrange their own fixtures. Players In Favour Underlying the Union’s rejection of any form of a competitive club league is its fear of the development of "shamateurism.” Since the breakaway of the northern clubs to form the Rugby League, the Rugby Union has had an obsession about professionalism or anything remotely associated with it. The Union believes that if a competitive league were formed cash inducements might be offered to persuade

players to move from club to club. It feels that clubs of all sizes should be free to take part in fixtures of their own choice and that players should be equally free. But, polls on the question of a competition have been conducted amongst players in recent years. These have suggested that increased competition would be favoured by clubs and players.

In its statement rejecting the introduction of a league competition, the Union made four points:— 1. The county championship sub-committee is at present discussing whether a reorganisation of the county championship competition would 1 be of advantage to the game. 2. The formation of a league would radically alter the ad-

ministration and organisation of the game in England without compensatory benefits to it. 3. To differentiate between clubs by the formation of a league would in the long run interfere with the harmonious fixture programme, encompassing all regions, that clubs have already fgrely arranged. 4. That registration of players might become an administrative necessity and possible inducements for players to move from club to club could well be a problem. The “Daily Telegraph’s” Rugby writer, John Reason, said that the Union's argument against league Rugby was very weak. “It implies that league football would interfere seriously with present club programmes, or even take over the whole of them, which is not only without substance but in any case would be impossible,” he wrote. Pat Marshall, in the “Daily Express,” describing the Union’s words as so much “whitewash,” said that the formation of a competitive league would benefit the game at the top to start with, but the benefits would filter down to all levels. “I believe the committee fuddy-duddies are frightened they may lose control of an Increasingly-popular game,” he said.