TV Now Rugby’s Blind-Spot POLICY ON SCHOOLS’ GAMES IS COMICAL

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32351, 17 July 1970, Page 15

TV Now Rugby’s Blind-Spot POLICY ON SCHOOLS’ GAMES IS COMICAL

(By

R.T. Brittenden)

Rugby football has so firm a hold of New Zealanders’ affections that the New Zealand Rugby Union seems to be quite blinded to the need to foster the game. And there can be no doubt that it needs fostering. At present, interest in Rugby is at its height, nationally because of the All Black tour of South Africa and the approaching test series, in Canterbury, because of this, and also because of the fact that in a very short time Canterbury will be defending the Ranfurly Shield.. The union’s refusal to sanction the televising of two schools games in Christchurch this season is, in effect, a statement that Rugby does not need to worry about its followers’ wishes, but is able to rely on a blind obedience to the faith. But what about next season, when the All Black clash against South Africa is but a memory, and when the steadily diminishing club and representative gates are a source lof concern? Does the union

really think there is no value in good will? The basis of the refusal to allow television of the school games is so absurd it is comical. Permission was sought to televise a match between St Kevin’s College and St Bede’s College. It was refused on the grounds that the Canterbury sub-unions were playing a minor representative match at Westport that afternoon. On Wednesday, the annual classic between Christchurch Boys’ High School and Christ’s College could not be shown on television screens because 160 miles away, at Oamaru, North Otago was playing South Canterbury. The union believes that the gates at these minor representative fixtures could be affected. It is possible to subtract something from nearly nothing, so the union is probably right, theoretically. But the resultant figure is so small, the loss of confidence of the public so large, that th- decision to ban television is damaging to a game New

Zealanders idolise, but one which may very well be challenged before very long by the sharp increase in interest in soccer. Can Rugby really afford to ignore the wishes of its supporters? Interest in the Christ’s College Boys’ High. School match is especially keen. Supporters of the schools—and of Rugby —are heavily spread in the city and in adjoining areas. The numbers in Oamaru are very light indeed. And there is another obvious audience to be considered —those who simply could not get to the game, because of age, or illness. But still, with a Teutonic thoroughness, the N.Z.R.U. adheres to its policy of not permitting television if there is a representative match at the same time within the viewing area. It is the height of absurds*" One could understand a reluctance to allow the televising of a Ranfurly Shield or test match at, say, Lancaster Park—although even if the cameras were there for a live

telecast, there is little doubt the ground, for a test at any rate, would be full. The day may come when it is possible for the main centres to exchange test and shield Rugby telecasts—a Christchurch audience watching a match at Athletic Park while Wellington viewers get on with Rocket Robin Hood and the rest. But when it comes to a school match, and a very minor affair, 160 miles away, it should be obvious, even to the N.Z.R.U., that the majority of Rugby supporters in Canterbury would wish to be able to see the schoolboys' fixture. The Canterbury Rugby Union, rather bravely, spoke up against the N.Z.R.U. decision, and for that it should be commended. But how long will it take the N.Z.R.U. to learn to look after its own?