RUGBY CRITICISMS

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 64, 13 September 1926, Page 10

RUGBY CRITICISMS

RECENT SHIELD MATCH

WELLINGTON UNION'S REPLY

HAWKES BAT DESIRE CONFERENCE.

The reply of the Wellington Rugby Union to a communication from the Hawkes Bay Bugby Union regarding the allegations of unfair comment published with reference to the recent Ranfurly Shiold match at Napier between Hawkes Bay and Wellington was tabled at the last meeting of the Jay Union, and after being considered a suggestion that Messrs. J. W. Norrie and N. M'Ktinzie, who are to accompany the Hawkes Bay team on tour, should confer with the members of the Wellington Union in Wellington was adopted. The letter from the secretary of the Wellington Bugby Union (Mr. A. E. Neilson) stated: "My union has made no allegations against your union, and, therefore, has nothing to refer to tho New Zealand Union. The reference to treatment of our players* whilst in Napier is not understood, as my union, in its letter on the 27th August, has already expressed its appreciation of tho kindness and courtesy of your union to our players whilst in Napier. WELLINGTON'S SPOKTINO PUBLIC. "My union is surprised at any suggestion of cancelling the return match on 2nd October, seeing that the Kanfurly Shiold match was arranged this year at the special request of your union. ThSs arrangement was made in departure from our usual programme in order to assist your union, and on the' express agreement that you- team would play here on its southern tour. My union can assure you that your team has nothing to fear from the Wellington public, for the Wellington public has justly earned the reputation of being Hie fairest and most unbiased in Now Ziealand. "As my union has neither instigated nor inspired any statements appearing in the Press with reference to the mate.'a, it feels that it is unnecessary for it to disassociate itself from statements with which it has not in any way been associated, and over the making of which it has, of course, no control. "Regarding Taylor, my union considers it has no jurisdiction under its rules to interrogate Taylor, but as a matter o_ courtesy to your union, my chairman applied to Taylor, and he declined to make any statement whatever." "ONI! POINT OVERLOOKED." The following discussion on the matter was reported by a Napier paper:— Mr. J. W. Norrie: "There is one point tJae Wellington Union has overlooked, and that is that we did not ask thorn to approach tho New Zealand Union, but to support us if we took it to that body. We are quite prepared to have everything inquired into, and the least they could have done was to support us." Mr. W. O'Neill: "They say they aro not connected with tho statements. Mr. Griffiths is their officer and repre ; sentative, and when he goes making statements like he has he is speaking for the union."

Mr. Norrie: "It is curious he has nothing to say to the union, but any amount to say to a particular paper."

Mi:. O'Neill: "Otago last year dissociated themselves from the remarks of one 'Pf their managers, and this is just the same. Wellington should have takooi up the same attitude."

Ma-. Norrie: "As far as the paper is concerned, wo can let it drop. It won't reflcict any credit on us to argue with a paiper of that standing. I would suggest that Mr. M'Kenzie and myself on the way south meet the members of the Wellington Union, and discuss tho position, with them."

Mr. O'Neill: "Personally I don't thiixk we should play the return niaieh."

Mr. A. W. H. King: "Neither do I."

Mr. Norrie: "Without all the facts before us it would not be advisable to take up an arbitrary stand."

Mr. O'Neill: "I would suggest that Mr. Griffiths be there."

Mr. Norrie's suggestion that he and Mr. M'Kenzie should meet the Wellington Union was agreed to.

NOT RESPONSIBLE,

"I am believed to have been the medico responsible for declaring Porter fit to play in the shield match v. Hawkes Bay," stated Dr. F. N. Harvey, in a letter to the union. "That is not the case, as I never saw him before tho aotual game. I would like to say, however, in all fairness to the members of the Wellington team, that I consider Porter was tho victim of what might be tanned an unduly strenuous tackle.

"When the horrified spectators on the stand saw Cooke launch his 9 stone o_ bono and muscle at the redoubtable Porter it was obvious that no ordinary •man could stand the assault, and, of course, Porter had to go off eventually as a result. But on the other hand, I do not think that Cooko should be unduly stigmatised for what was perfectly legitimate tackling, and after all, all in the game. Probably it would meet the bill were he told next time to go for someone his own size or else moderate his ardour."