RUGBY IN EMPIRE

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 171, 15 April 1932, Page 17

RUGBY IN EMPIRE

Commission Rejected DOMINION’S DECISION Old Relations to Stand The New Zealand Rugby Union, at the annual conference of delegates in Wellington yesterday, decided to decline to join the proposed Rugby Commission, and to retain affiliation with the English Football Union. The subject was referred to at length by Mr. 8. 8. Dean in his presidential address. "Another matter that will be provocative of a keen debate is the question of representation of the union and other overseas Dominions’ unions on a body for the control of the game throughout the Empire,” he said. "It is felt by us all that the time has surely arrived when New Zealand, South Africa, and Australia should have a voice and vote on a body that will be supreme in the control and destinies of our game. Although the claims of the overseas unions have been pressed for a number of years, the best offer we have had from the International Board is a proposed Rugby Commission. Although the commission will give us an opportunity of stating our aspirations and voting on questions submitted, the commission is subservient to the Internationa.! Board, who may in their wisdom discard any resolutions carried by the commission. I personally do not think this is likely to occur, as by the suggested constitution of the commission any resolution would have to be carried by such an overwhelming majority that it would need to be practically unanimous, and must necessarily have the support of a majority of the unions comprising the International Board before any resolution carried by the commission can become law.

“Although it may be considered that the acceptance of the commission may be a desirable step and would bring us and the overseas Dominions into closet contact with the powers that be in the Old Country, I am of the opinion that we should, with the other overseas Dominions, press our claims for a seat on a regular and properly-constituted body who will be paramount in the control of Rugby football. "The South African Rugby Board accepted the offer of a commission without any reservation whatsoever, but Australia, like ourselves, have up to the present refrained from expressing their opinion on this important subject. It is a great pity that the request sent forward by all the overseas unions for a conference during the recent visit of the South African team to Great Britain was not acceded to. I am quite safe in saying that this was the main reason that decided Mr. A. J. Pienaar, the. president of the South African Rugby Board, visiting Great Britain during the last season. "It is not desirous that the control of Rugby should be removed from the Home land, ami it is hard to understand why wc should not enjoy the confidence of the Home unions, particularly in view of the fact that both Australia and New Zealand agreed, upon being asked by England to fall into line in playing the game in conforming with the rules as then laid down by the Rugby Union, and we were given to understand by Mr. Baxter, who was manager of the British team that visited our shores in 1930, this was the main obstacle in the way of the establishment of such a body as the overseas unions deifred. We appreciate the efforts made by the Rugby Union (England) and Mr. Baxter on our behalf, but is the proposed commission satisfactory to us? Should wc accept it. or should we refuse it in its present form, is for this conference to decide.

‘‘lt must be remembered, should the proposed commission be accepted, we must withdraw our affiliation to the Rugby Football Union, and it may be we arc grasping at the shadow and losing the substance. The Rugby Football Union. I am sure, has done, and is doing. its utmost to see fair treatment meted out to the Dominions unions, and until such time as a body is set up that will satisfy the Dominions, it may be better to retain affiliation with England.’’ Confidential Information. On behalf of the management committee, the president moved : — “That rule 2 of the constitution (of the New Zealand Union) be deleted, and the following substituted: ‘lt shall be a member of the Rugby Football Commission, and shall adopt the laws of football and the rules as to professionalism as from time to time fixed by the International Board.’ ” Air. S. F. Wilson (Canterbury) questioned whether this motion was in order, as it proposed to affiliate with a body which was not in existence. The president said that a considerable amount of correspondence had taken place with the Rugby Football Union on the subject, but this was of a confidential nature. In order that this correspondence could be placed before delegates, the conference went into committee. Upon resuming in open conference, the president withdrew the notice of motion which had been put forward by the management committee. Air. S. F. Wilson (Canterbury) then moved: “That the New Zealand Rugby Union regrets that it cannot accept representstion on any committee or commission which has uo legislative power.” England’s Friendship. He said that the only .Dominion represented at the conference in London in 1924 was New Zealand, ami he was satisfied that the proposed commission would never meet. The only one of the four Home unions which was sympathetic to New Zealand was. England. The other Home unions were jealous of the extra representation given to the English Union by the affiliation of Dominion unions, and Scotland and Ireland always voted together. ’The suggestion was that the commission should meet in England every three years, and he considered that the meeting should be in the most convenient place. New Zealand had been striving for some years past for something they now knew they could not get. He considered that they should tell the English Union that they were grateful for what it had done for New Zealand. Let them get away from this continuous striving for something they could not get. The motion was seconded by Air. A. McPhail (Canterbury). Otago Motion Favoured. Air. H. Harris (Otago) jocularly said that he had never held the Bolshcvtki tendencies which Air. Wilson had harboured. He personally thought it would be a waste of time and money for New Zealand to send delegates to London every three years. He moved ns an amendment: “That the New Zealand Rugby Union thanks the International Board for its offer to establish a Rugby Football Commission. but regrets that it is unable to accept the commission in its proposed form. The Now Zealand Rugby Union reaffirms its willingness to conform to the rules of the game us laid down by the International Board, and until such time ns lhe overseas Dominions are given a seat or. a supreme body of control. >t will continue its affiliation with the Rugby rootball Union (England).” . , Mr. J. McLeod (Taranaki) seconded the amendment, remarking that it was well known that the only friend Neiv Zealand had at Home was the English Rugby Union. While retaining affiliation wi.li the English Union, New Zealand could quietly press for representation on the body which framed the laws of the game. A lengthy discussion ensued. Mr. G. A. Maddison (Hawkes Bay) held that the New Zealand Union had a right to representation on the body which made the laws of the gniiie. and should be advised of proposed alterations. Mr. ,1. I’rendeville (Wellington) agree I with this view, holding that due notice I should be given of intention to alter the rules. I Mr. 11. Frost (Auckland) said it w".s vary unlikely that the International Rugby

Board would advise New Zealand concerning alterations to the laws. The president said that in the past the management coinmitlee of the New Zealand Union had had to go through the English Union’s handbook each year in order to find out what alterations had been made to the rules. Mr. Wilson here withdrew Canterbury's motion, and Mr, Harris’s amendment became the motion, and was carried unanimously. Notice of Alterations. Mr. Maddison then moved that the English Union be asked that any suggested alterations to the laws of the game should first be submitted to the Dominions’ Unions before being dealt with by the International Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. J. Crowley (North Otago), and carried.