FOOTBALL.

Evening Star, Issue 9466, 10 August 1894, Page 3

FOOTBALL.

THE OTAGOCANTERBURY MATCH. There was a very large attendance of delegates at the monthly meeting of the Canterbury Rugby Union on Tuesday night, Mr A. E. G. Rhodes presiding. Mr T. R. Cresswell (secretary) said the Committee had instructed him to move the following motion, which had been carried by them unanimously:—" This Union regret the action of the New Zealand Rugby Union in refusing permission for the Canterbury-Otago match, but at the same time will abide by the decision of the New, Zealand Rugby Union." The motion naturally fell under two heads, the first an expression of regret and the second a statement of a definite course of action to be taken in the future. Whatever might be their opinion as regarded future action, everyone sincerely regretted that the Otago-Canter-bnry match was likely to fall through, and this remark was emphasised by the following memorial he had received : undersigned representatives of the Canterbury Rugby Union in interprovincial football matches, desire to express our opinion that the action Of the New Zealand Rugby Union, in refusing to allow the OtagoCanterbury match to be played, is opposed to the best interests of football in Canterbury, and that if the match is not played an irreparable injury will undoubtedly result.— A. H. Auderson, F. W. Anderson, W. M. Allardvce, W. Hartland, J. F. Hartland, J. S. Hawkes, E. G. Hawkes, J. M. Turnbull, G. Matheson, George Harris, T. D. Harmon, G. J. C. Smart, J. D. Hall, W. Humphreys, J. Fuller, A. Pitcaithley." It certainly seemed very hard that this oldest interprovincial match in New Zealand should be stopped even for a year, a match marked above all others for the good feeling shown between the unions, and a match stopped by a body which had only been brought into existence after thirteen or fourteen of the annual fixtures had been played. The meeting could not help expressing their regret and entering a protest, and the Union would be weak indeed if they did not protest. Concerning the second part of the motion there was difference of opinion, of which it did not need the voluminous correspondence in the papers to assure him. The question arose What definite action should be taken ? Was the match to be played in spite of the New Zealand Union as some suggested, or was the New Zealand Union to be bowed to and the match not to be played until Otago joined. He thought certainly the latter. If it were played in spite of the New Zealand Union, Canterbury's action would be illtimed ; it would be inconsistent. At the last annual meeting a majority of the delegates decided to join, and it was then pointed out that the question which had cropped up would occur. Then, to play the match would be absolutely of no use whatever to the cause of football. There was no doubt that the New Zealand Union offered more than the Otago Union could, and Canterbury must throw aside all feeling of sentiment. If Canterbury played Otago she also playe d Southland. If she abided by the decision of the New Zealand Union she got Wairarapa and New South Wales, and the public saw them all; and he claimed that the public had to be considered, for they would not see the others were they played this year. To secede from the New Zealand Union would be a step in a backward direction, and throw football back two or three years. Otago must finally come in, and by playing the match undei- the circumstances Canterbury would be delaying that eonsummation, the absorption of all the unions into the New Zealand Union, which was greatly desired.—(Loud applause.) Mr'?,. Triggs (Linwood) seconded the motion, and said that as the majority of the football players of Otago were in favor of affiliation, Canterbury should assist them.— (Applause). Mr T. L. Smith (Lyttelton) having alluded to the position he took up at the last general meeting said that since then the New Zealand Union had met and had rejected the appeal from the Canterbury Union, treating her as a mouse could only expect to be treated by a cat. In connection with the matter he was induced to move an amendment to tho motion,' because he reckoned, moreover, that the Executive had shown a certain amount of inconsistency in pledging themselves. His amendment was —"That whereas this Union having made every conciliatory effort to obtain permission from the New Zealand Rugby Union for the annual match between Otago and Canterbury, and having signally failed in their reasonable request, hereby delegate the Executive to immediately complete arrangements for the annual fixture with Otago and return visit to Southland." He was pleased to find that the Executive were with him in his arguments for the match to be played. They were placed before the affiliated bodies in a circular, which emanated from the Canterbury Committee. He had a personal consideration for the associations that had existed between Otago and Canterbury for the past sixteen yearsassociations that had in every way been surrounded by a great deal of pleasure and had afforded a different contrast to what had occurred in other centres. In the sixteen years there had never been a squabble in all the contests, and that could not be said of every centre. He was fortified in bringing forth his amendment by the request which had been read from old interprovincial players, and which spoke volumes for the motion which he placed before them. He also thought he reflected public opinion in his amendment. He brought forward the amendment for the reason that Canterbury was led last year to understand that trie policy of the New Zealand Union would be one of non-interference as far as Canterbury was concerned with her arrangements, and that when Canterbury was accepted she was accepted with her engagements, which included the annual fixture of Otago v. Canterbury. He quite understood it would be advanced that it would be acting disloyally to sever their connection with the New Zealand Union, but the amendment threw the onus on that Union of enforcing Canterbury's resignation, by ignominiously kicking her out, and extending the same consideration to her that they had to her application.—(Applause.) Mr H. Lowry (Merivale) seconded the amendment, and said that as an old interprovincial player he would he sorry to see the match fall.through. Mr Nicoll (Lincoln College) said that the opinion of other branches of amateur sport was that Canterbury was in honor bound to play the match.—(Applause.) If Canterbury seceded, he thought she was strong enough to withstand any ridicule which might be hurled at her. The right thing to do was tq play the match. Mr Triggs did not see why other athletic bodies should be studied as they did not assist them.

Mr Kesteven (East Christchurch) endorsed the views advanced by the secretary, and objected to the introduction by Mr Nicoll of qther athletic bodies into the subject. He put little value on. the petition. The days of the petitioners were past, and the Union had now to consider the present, Next season Canterbury would probably meet Auckland, Wellington, Queensland, Hawke's Bay, and Taranaki. —(A Voice : "And Southland.") No, they went out as they went in. If Canterbury seceded she would only have the Otago match, and he felt that the public would rather see the New South Wales match. But, from what he could gather, there need be no fear of the Otago match being off, for Otago was, he understood, only waiting the result of that meeting to come to a resolution, which would be probably to affiliate. (Applause.) He did not think Otago should be studied, since Otago had, done nothing, except that a majority of the footballers had opposed affiliation and, being in power, had carried their point. He should support the motion 6f the 'Executive. Mr Ciirry (Christchurch) said it would be undignified for Canterbury to first ask permission and £ben refuse to abide by thp decision. He pointed out that secession would probably mean the establishment of a South Island union, and there was not room in New Zealand for two such large bodies. While he deplored the position which so far prevented the Otago match, he saw no other dignified course than to support the Executive.—(Applause.) Mr Garrard (Merivale) said that while he did not like the action of the New Zealand Union, and had "pointed out the complications which would arise, he should vote

for the motion, since Canterbury was now affiliated.

Mr D. Jack (Canterbury College) said the benefits to Canterbury were only prospective, and further that Canterbury would get a match with a team which after a tour could not be expected to be fit enough to give the best exhibition of football; while, on the other hand, there was always some benefit to be had from playing Otago. Besides, the matches being held up before Canterbury was nothing but an open and barefaced bribe. The New Zealand Union might have given permission for the match to be played this year at any rate. The best courae to pursue was to play the match. Mr Craddock (East Christchurch) supported tho motion, and pointed out that the majority of the Otago footballers were in favor of the affiliation. He also observed that at the beginning of the year delegates were instructed by their clubs how to vote, and unless they had siuce been instructed otherwise they ought to abide by these votes. Referring to the Otago as an old established match, he remarked that it was started in 1878—(Mr Smith : "1877.") and that Canterbury met Wellington, Auckland, and Nelson in 1875. Canterbury unreservedly aifiliated, and he sincerely trusted she would stand by that position. Dr Jennings was unreservedly in favor of the resolution, the first clause of which was embodied in the circular from the old footballers, and that circular did not suggest that the match should be played in spite of the decision of the New Zealand Union. Concerning the arrangements between the three Southern Unions he considered they were at an end when Southland and Canterbury affiliated; in fact, Otago had deserted Canterbury, not Canterbury Otago. Then the majority of the footballers had to be considered, and they were the best judges of what was the best for football. Canterbury stood in the same position towards the New Zealand Union as the affiliated clubs stood to them (Canterbury); and if one of their clubs behaved to them as it w as proposed they should treat tho New Zealand Union they would be the first to say that such conduct would be shameful. He deprecated any action on the part of Canterbury which was likely to upset the existing arrangements for fixtures already agreed upon, or would weaken the position Canterbury had taken up. Mr Mussen (Linwood) approved of the motion, but did not think the protest was strong enough. The action of the New Zealand Union was unsportsmanlike, coercive, mean, and contemptible. Mr Smith's amendment was put and lost on the voices.

Mr Mussen moved that the word " unsportsmanlike " be inserted before the word " action " in the original resolution, but this amendment was not seconded.

The Chairman said he was glad that Mr Smith's amendment had not been carried, because whatever motion they carried that would have been absolutely the worst. If Canterbury meant to play the Otago match she should not do an unsportsmanlike action, but leave the Union before she disobeyed the ruling of that body. If there was to be a fight over the question it should have been at the beginning of the season, for then the instructions delegates received from their clubs overruled anything which had been previously done. When the Southland and Canterbury Unions affiliated a majority had joined, and that ended the compact with Otago. Canterbury was now in a different position, and it was her duty to abide by the ruling of the New Zealand Union until she decided to leave, and no negotiations should be made for any outside match while affiliated without permission.— (Applause.) The motion was then put and carried on the voices.—'Press.'