MARIST SUSPENSION STANDS

Evening Star, Issue 18534, 17 January 1924, Page 2

MARIS T SUSPENSION STANDS

KO BIGHT OF APPEAL. ECHO OF RUGBY DISPUTE. [Pee United Peess Association.') WELLINGTON, January 16. In ■connection with the dispute between the Marist Club (Christchurch) amid the Canterbury Rugby Union over the mat ah with the Otago University team, as the result of which the • Marist Club was suspended, tlho appeal of the latter was before the union'' to-night. Tho Canterbury Union expressed surprise ait'thc statement alleged to have been made by Mr Dean (chotiman of tlho Now Zealand Rugby Union) that tho Marists wore justified m not playing if the rules did not suit them. Prom this the common interpretation was that it would moan -all tho rules were merely a farce. There was no appeal from tho decision olf the Canterbury Union which bad imposed suspension an the Marist Club, except to a .general meeting of the union. Mr Dean, denied (having uttered such absurd statements as alleged. It was decided that the Marists had no right of appeal to tlho Now Zealand Union, and the suspension would 'have to stand. , CANTERBURY RULES DIPPER. ALTERATION SUGGESTED. LSpkcial to the ‘Stab.’] WELLINGTON, January 16. Though tho southern union has not held the inquiry whidli the New Zealand Management Committee requested it to, when last the matter was referred back, investigation of tho position has revealed the feet that tho Canterbury Union’s rules differ from those approved by the parent body, and held by most of tine provincial unions, in that they include a clause which dispenses with any right of appeal. Clause IS (sub-seotion c) provides that the Management Committee has the right to suspend or otherwise penalise any body or person who does not conform to its decision!; while clause 18 of the Canterbury rules states that the decisions of the Management Committee shall be final and binding, and that there shall be no right of appeal therefrom. “ The leoal position.,” said a well-known Rugby official, “ (thus appears to be clear, and the New Zealand Union cannot consider the appeal, as the Canterbury rules have been dully approved by a general meeting, ond operate in the present instance. . The difference in the rules is explained by the foot that f!ht Otago Union was at one time affiliated to the English Rugby Union direct, and it is thought that Canterbury at (be time of drafting its constitution adopted those rules. It may be pointed out that this clause governing the right of appeal should be altered, and the soutihem bodv should take the necessary stems to bring its constitution wiito Hue with (bait of the New. Zealand body. Some members 'feel that clause 18 is ultra wires, and (bait Canterbury has no right to differ from tho provision of ririht of appeal which is contained in danse 35 of tho New Zealand constitution.”

Prom-men,t olTicinJa consider that, though the Gainitedbury comri.rtnltiun should be altered, its legality is unquestioned.