THE SENIOR FLAG.

Evening Star, Issue 9832, 22 October 1895, Page 4

THE SENIOR FLAG.

A special general meeting of the Otago Rugby Football Union was held in the City Hotel last night to consider the awarding of the senior flag to the Kaikorai Club. Mr Chisholm (president of the Union), occupied the chair, and a large number were present. The Chaibman explained that the meeting was called in answer to a requisition from delegates of the Dunedin, Pirates, Union, and Alhambra Clubs. He called upon the requisitionists to state their case.

Mr R. Mautin (Dunedin Club) stated the reason why his club protested. This was the first season for championship matches, and certain rules were drawn up as to the awarding of the flag, Rule 4 provided that a win should count 2 points, a draw 1 point, and a loss nothing, and upon that rule the Dunedin Club based their claim to the senior flag. They had played nine matches, won six, and drawn three —a total of 15 points; the Kaikorai Club had played eight, won six, and drawn two—a total of 14 points. According to the rule, the flag belonged to the Dunedin Club, who were at a total loss to understand why it wai not awarded them. The records of the Kaikorai Club in previous seasons should not be considered, but the Committee appeared to have attached some weight to them.—(''Nonsense.") Considering the strength of the teams they had met, too, the Dunedin Club had a better record. Mr J. H. Chapman moved—"That in tho opinion of this meeting the action of the Committee in awarding the senior flag to the Kaikorai Club is not justified." The rule was cleartwo points for a win, one point for a draw. It had been argued that the flag should be awarded on a percentage of points, but the rules provided for' no percentage, and that should not be considered. Rule 4 was final oh the master, and beyond doubt the flag should go to the Dunedin Club. He doubted whether, looking at it from any point of view, the Kaikorai Club's record was better than Dunedia's. "Mr J ; , G. Maktin seoonded. Mr R.. D. ISAACS explained that in tho original draft it was proposed that eaoh olub should meet the others twioe, but it was objected that thb oould not be done, and the rule was accordingly altered to read as it now stood. Rule 4 did not, howover, state that the team obtaining most points should got the flag. The Committee relied on rules 1 and 13, ooupled with rule 4, as giving them authority to act as they had done. Mr J. R. Mon'toombky pointed out that rule 4 only appointed a basis of scoring on which the Committee should get to work. That the proportional system should be adopted was distinctly understood at tho meeting of tho Committee at which 'he rule was passed, and members of the Dunedin Club wore quite aware of it Mr E. HAMKt (Warehousemen) said that early in the season the junior clubs were aware that the proportional system was to be adopted, and he thought that, if the junior clubs knew that, the senior clubs must have known also. The Canteibury Union counted by proportion, though nothing was said about it in the rules. Mr J. M. Galcaway (vioe-piesMent) said it seemed to him plain that, apart from rules 1 and 13, which were perfectly clear, the intention of rule 3 was to guard against tho fallacy that the club scoring: the most points was to win. It was perfectly impossible that each compoting club should play the same number of matches. Ho put it strongly to the delegates that, after the Committee had been given authority to award the flag and when it was admitted that the flag had been awarded in all good faith, it was rather, late in the day to say that the proper club had not won the flag and to try to set aside the award of the Committee, and if the delegates di I a thing of thai sorb en that occasion it would be a very dangerous precedent.

Mr V. G. Wells (Melrose) thought the Dunedin Club had fairly won the flag, and were only fighting for what they were entitled to. The Chairman denied that the Committee had in their decision been influenced by the way the matches were going. Mr T. Hunter and Mr J. G. Martin said they had never heard of the proportional Bystem. - Mr 6. L. Denniston (vice-president) said that if Mr Gallaway's view were correct no protest should be made under any circumstances, but he thought a protest was possible after every credit waß given to the Committee for desiring to act fairly. Mr M. Cohen (41bambra) argued that if the Committee had desired to award the flag on a system of proportion that should have been notified in the rules. A protest could only be lodged after the award was made. Mr A. R. LaWry (Caversham) opposed the motion, and Mr W.J. Strong (member of Committee) pointed qut that the whole business was an experiment. It was unanimously agreed by the Committee that the only way to put the clubs on an equal footing was to strike a percentage. It was obvious that there could be no other fair way of arriving at a decision. After Mr Chapman had replied the motion was lost by 21 to 10,