SEDDON SHIELD

Greymouth Evening Star, 7 May 1931, Page 11

SEDDON SHIELD

NELSON TO SECEDE? While representative matches to be played this season were being discussed by the Nelson Rugby Union at its weekly' meeting on Monday evening (says the “Nelson Mail”), several members expressed the opinion that the game in the district would be better off if less representative matches were played. They considered too many representative games spoilt the club games and put too many players “on the bank.” Then Mt. H., V. {Searle suggested that it Would be in the best interests of the game for the Union to play home and home matches and not trouble about challenging for the Seddon Shield. Immediately there followed a short but lively discussion in which Mr. Searle had the support of at least two other members.

In moving that Nelson hot challenge for the Seddofi Shield this year, Mr. Searle asked: “If We get the Shield this year, will we not be in the same position next year as we were when we had it before and have representative matches which will affect odr club nlay? I think we would be better off without the Shield.” Mr. W. R. Owen: “I second the motion. I think it is a move in the right direction.” * Mr. H. Silcock moved that the discussion, be taken in committee, but he’ had no seconder. Messrs H. Brough and D. Merritt were strongly opposed to any such move as Mr. Searle suggested, the motion being described by them 'as “ridiculous” and “absurd.” Mr. R. J. Eyre: “Well, I can’t say that while without the Shield oUr football has improved, for last year the play was not good. When the Shield is here the players are stirred un and I think it is an incentive to players.” He added that "when Marlborough held the trophy While he was resident in Blenheim, it helped the game considerably in that province. The President (Mr R. Blewett) : “No doubt all our young players look forward to being in a Seddon Shield team.”

Mr Searle: “Well, we can have them looking forward to being in the ” son representative team.” Mr. J. Richardson considered too much attention Had been paid in recent years to representative matches, to the detriment, of club football, and he attributed the state of the clubs to-day as a direct result of sacrificing inter-club play for representative games. ’ The Treasurer (Mr. Merritt) pointed out that the Union existed on funds from representative matches. Mr. Eyre: “It is not a matter of profits from them, bitt a matter of bread and butter for us.” “Nelson has been in the competition for 25 years,” said the President, “and I think Mr. Searle’s motion is drastic.” He stated that up to 1924 Nelson had not challenged as much as ether Unions, who let Nelson know that they thought the local Union was not playing the game by standing,.out. Since then Nelson had played regularly and the Union had no doubt benefitted from the competition, as the town had done. “To secede from the Seddon Shield competition, is almost as mad as seceding from the English Rugby Union,” concluded Mr. Blewett. Mr. Brough: “What is Mr. Searle’s objective? His College teams plays in an inter-College tournament.” Mr. Searle: “We play for a friendty game.” , ,1 Mr Brough: “And we play Shield matches for the honour of winning.” Mr. Searle attributed the deadness in Nelson football last yeai to the reaction from the years when the Shield was held locally. Mr. F. McDowell: “Do you think, Mr. President, that in past years the Seddon Shield has fostered football ’n the northern end of the South Island?”

The President: “It certainly has aroused great interest in the game.” Finally Mr. Searle withdrew his motion and gave notice of motion to move it at the next meeting of the committee, in order to give delegates an opportunity to consult their clubs on the matter.