FOOTBALL GODES

Evening Star, Issue 18812, 10 December 1924, Page 6

FOOTBALL GODES

THE DIVERS IHDIDEKT. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Several days ago you were generous enough to publish a letter by an equally generous correspondent, who evidently had learnt of a notice sent me by tho Otago Rugby Union on behalf of the New Zealand Union, requesting me to “ Show cause within fourteen days why I should not be expelled from Rugby football owing to having infringed tho laws of professionalism.” I thank your correspondent for his well-couched judgment of the matter, and desire to state that am not acquainted with the laws of professionalism, for tho very reason that have been associated with amateur sport all my life, and intend to defend my i right to continue to do so. With that| object in, view I instructed my solicitors to look into the matter, to prevent tha Rugby Union from - persisting in vindictive and intimidatory propaganda, which seems to bo its “ sportsmanlike ” attitude towards others who do not see eye to eye with its general administration. Because I choose as a citizen to help foster League football, which, in New Zealand, is considered to ho amateur, or a.-, much amateur as Rugby, I do not see • why I should bo expelled or threatenedj to be expelled from Rugby, even though have never been connected with it, nor have I indicated that I wanted to bo. My solicitors received a reply from the Rugby Union (Dunedin) pointing out that the English Rugby Union rules are applied in New Zealand, and are to be, enforced “ in tho cases of Mr Divors ai d others.” This epistle adds; “My com mittee, in reply to your remark that Mr Divers cannot lie expelled from a position which ho does not hold, points out that it has used tho exact words of the English rule. Perhaps the word ‘ expel which is in tho rule does not very well fit the meaning. But the meaning plainly is that a person who breaks the union’s rules as to professionalism must cense to be a member of any Rugby Union club of which he is then a member, and ceaso to bo eligible for membership of any Rugby Union organisation whether ho is a member of any organisation or not.”

Now, just imagine a person breaking rules of an. organisation to which lie does not belong in any way! I lake it that the Rugby Union, according to the foregoing rules, will bo in duty hound *o notify all citizens of New Zealand who patronise League football, racing, and other modern sports and are not members of the Rugby Union, .advising them that they must explain or are ineligible to become* members of the Rugby Union or its clubs.

As a kind of solace to mo the union proceeds: “It 'docs not seem (lair to place any mam under this permanent disability without letting him know and giv ing him a chance to explain himself.’’ Is that not kind? By what strange reasoning am 1 compelled to explain lo the Rugby Union ? Has that self-elated body taken the function of a judicial court in this land, so much so that can call on any citizens, willy-nilly, to explain why they should not be expelled from that Rugby orgauifation, even not members; or arc ineligible, even they have not desired to be eligible? To endeavor to cloak over its foolish presumption the union’s letter adds : "If the fact that he lias rendered himself incapable of having anything to do with Rugby football does not interest the person to whom the notice is sent, no harm, is at anyrate done in sending it,” Damning itself utterly, this simpcriig bluff of the union ends: “Finally, tins letter will make it clear that it is mt suggested that Mr Divers was at the date of the notice in any way connected with Rirghy football."

The whole tenor of the communication is surely sufficient to show tho faltering peculiarity of Rugby Union management aud its ideas of justice to rivals in sport, j I leave tho matter at present to the happier discrimination of your many readers, and enclose copy of tho correspondence that has passed between the union and my legal advisers.—l am, etc. H. Divers. [Enclosures.] OTAGO RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION. DUNEDIN, November 18, 1924. Mr IT. Divers, Princes street, Dunedin. Dear sir, —I have been directed by the New Zealand Rugby Union to write asking you to show cause within fourteen days why you should not be expelled from Rugby football, owing to having infringed the laws of professionalism.—Yours faithfully (Signed) E. S. Wilson, secretary. DUNEDIN, December 4, 1924. Tho Secretary, the Otago Rugby Football Union, Dunedin. Dear sir,—-Mr H. Divers has handed a® your letter of November 1G24, wife instructions to reply. Mr Divers inform# us that he is not a member of the Otago Rugby Union or of any other Rugby Union, nor does he. hold any position in connection with cither. If that is so, we cannot quite see how your union can expel him from a position which ho docs not hold. Further, Mr Divers assures us that, even if it were possible lor you to take the step you threaten, he has done nothing to bring himself within tho rule as to professionalism contained in tho 'Otago Rugby Football Annual.’ If you disagree with 'his contention in this respect we think it but reasonable that you should inform ns in what sense you say he has infringed these laws. We would point out to you that tho mere suggestion that j man has been expelled —or even threatened with expulsion—from a sporting organisation is calculated, especially if ho is otherwise connected with sport, to seriously injure him in the eyes of Ins fellow-citizens, and we feel satisfied that yoiiD union’s sense of fair play will prevent you doing anything to inflict such injury without careful consideration, and without affording Mr Divers ample opportunity of knowing what is alleged against him. —Yours faithfully, Solomon, Gascoigne, Sinclair, and Solomon. (Signed) per S. Solomon. Otago Rugby Football Union, Dunedin, December 6, 1924. Messrs Solomon, Gascoigne, Sinclair, and Solomon, solicitors, Dunedin. Dear Sirs,—Be Mr li. Divers, in reply to your letter of tho 4th inst., I am directed by my committee to refer you to the. rules its la professionalism printed on pp. 127 to 132 of my union’s ‘Annual,’ copy herewith. I am instructed to ask you lo look at clause 2 (p. 128), clause 3 (p. 130), and clause. 2 (p. 220). These rules arc binding in New Zealand, and my union has instructions lo enforce them in the cases of Mr Divers and others. My committee, in reply to your remark that MiDivers cannot be, expelled from a position which he does not hold, points out that it has used the exact words of tho English rule. Perhaps the word “ex-pel” which is in the rule does not very well fit the meaning. But the meaning plainly is that a person who breaks the. union’s rules as to professionalism must cease to bo a member of any Rugby Union club of which he is then a member, and ceases to ho eligible for membership of any Rugby Union organisation, whether he is a member of any such organisation or not. It does not seem fair to place any man under this permanent disability without letting him know and-giving him a chance to explain himself. If the fact that he has rendered himself incapable of having anything to do with Rugby football does not interest the person to whom tho notice is sent, no harm is at any rate done in sending it. And in England and hero it has always been the practice to send such notices, whether the person dealt with was a member of any Rugby Union club or not. Finally, this letter will make it clear that it is not suggested that Mr Divers was at the date of the notice in any way connected with Rugby football.— Xaazs .faithfully, E. S. Wilson, secretary.