COUNTRY FOOTBALL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXIII, Issue 15923, 8 May 1912, Page 11

COUNTRY FOOTBALL.

ACTION TAKEN BY RUGBY UNION. SUB-UNION RULE MODIFIED. A special' general meetiujf of the delegates to the Canterbury Rugby Union was held in the Chamber of Commerce last evening for the purpose of discussing a motion intended to do away with the Union’s sub-union rule which prohibits a player residing in. a sub-union district from playing in any competitions under the auspices of the Canterbury Ru'gbv Union. There was a largo attendance of delegates and Mr G. H. Mason was in the chair.

Mr F. L. Murray moved that competition rule 3 of the Canterbury Rugby Union, which is the prohibiting rule, should ho struck out. Ho said that since the last special general meeting of delegates, which had discussed the question, lie had visited all the. subunions with the exception of the Peninsula, and it was the unanimous opinion of both old and present players, that tho deletion of the rule would lie a step in the right direction, the sole excuse n*minst such ail action i\as that it meant the breaking up of tho country dubs, if players came into town There was no denying the fact that football wanted improving in the country, and in the town as well, and he was certain that the proposal would make for the improvement of country football. During the seven years that the sub-unions had -been affiliated, only nineteen players from the country had found their way into Can ter bur;, representative teams, and of t.ie&e twelve had come from one sub-union, so it would ho seen that representation from the country had not been very larce. Tho passing of his motion would not injure the sub-umons to the extent that some pooplo thought., and it would raise the standard of play in both the town and the country. There was a motion com mg t up later in the evening to allow imyyers in tho North Canterbury district to obtain football in Christchurch, and it was only fair that the other sub-unions should have the same privilege. Referring to the number oi players who would" come in from the country, he did not think that many, _ except Seniors, would come, iu, and m these davs of modern conveniences or transport ' they would welcome the chance to improve thoir football. It was the unanimous opinion of every sub-union that football was not making any headway in the country districts, and one or two said that it was going back. Ho was'of opinion that, something would have to be done to improve tlio position, and he had devised Ins scheme., and had put it forward', purely on his own account and solely in tho interests of the sport. i Mr C. IV. Hervoy seconded the motion, and said that he did so because lie thought that it would improve football. He considered the scheme a. stepping stone to getting players to come in and improve their play. The Union was not doing sufficient for country players by holding Country Week, whioh, for all the benefits that had accrued, was a pure farce. The chairman denied that the subunions were in favour of the motion., arid road correspondence from the Ellesmere and Ashburton sub-unions, which were directly opposed to it. Ho said that robbing tho sub-unions of their best, players would not improve country football. Tlio suggestion of the Ellesmere' sub-union that the Management Committee should invite delegates from the ,sub-unions to a conference on the question of providing country players with more games against town teams was a much better scheme. Mr W. G. Garrard said that in connection with the nineteen representative players drawn from the country since the _ establishment of the sub-unions, one fact had been overlooked, and that was that prior to the sub-unions coming into existence, the country bad only provided four representative players. This effectually proved that before the inauguration of the subunions-, very little interest had been taken in • country football, and that therefore the sub-unions had done some good. Possibly the present sub-union scheme was not the best, bub he would like to hear of a better one. As far, as lie could find out, all the sub-unions still wanted local government. Mr C. Lafferty asked whether Canterbury was better represented as a province before the establishment of the sub-unions than it' was now. He considered that more interest should ho taken iu the Centre competitions. From inquiries he had made in Auckland lie had found that they took far more interest in football there than they did in Canterbury. He considered that their first duty was to make Canterbury football worthy of the name, and for this purpose ‘ they should use the country players to feed tho town teams and let them come in to play. . Mr F. T. Evans said, that he had previously kept out of tho discussion for 'the purpose of thoroughly investigating the scheme. He thought that it would benefit individual players, but would do great harm to country football. For this reason he would not vote for the motion, although he gave Mr Murray every credit for his opinion. If Mr Murray had come, to the meeting with the support of one or two sub-unions, lie would have supported him, but all the support he had was that of a few prominent players. What was required was a scheme to bring country players more into prominence. This should" not be done by means of trial games. They were an infliction to the fleteli. Country players should be given the opportunity of .pitying in town, not once, but on throe or four Saturdays. He emphasised the wifaii ness of giving thorn only one chance -,f shyriqg their abilities iii town, by relating an instance of a player from tlio Bays whom be had purposely journeyed to the Peninsula to see play. On his recommendation the player in question had been brought into town on the* following Saturday, but ho had. turned out a complete failure. He was certain that this had been due to nervousness tbronub playing under unusual conditions. and he was positive that, had this 1$ player been given thorough . series of trials. he would have turned out one of the best players that they had ever had. As it was. he had gone back to tlic bavs, and bad never been heard of again. He suggested setting up a suli-commit-tee to go into the question of supplying country players'with three or four games.in town during the second round of the senior matches, when they could take the place of one' or two ’of the teams at the bottom of the list. With regard to a letter that had appeared in the paper from Mr Banks, vice-pre-sident of the Kirwee Football Club, in which the writer stated that Mr Garrard had been against country football, Mr Evans entirely refuted that statement, and said that no ore knew better than himself how hard Mr Gar-

rard had worked for country football and how. enthusiastic he had been in launching the sub-union scheme. Mr F. J. Ilrooker said that the subunion scheme was not a great success. The game was over-governed, and something would have .to he done to. improve ; t. He would support the •• motion .

Mr A. Hooper proposed an amendment to the effect that no player residing in a sub-union district should he allowed to play in any competition of tho Canterbury Rugby Union unless lie bad received a permit from tlie subunion. It was not right, he stated, to break up the sub-unions, but if they were desirous of giving any- of their players an opportunity of improving their football by playing in town this would enable them to do so. The amendment was seconded by Mr C. Hasell.

Mr S. F. Wilson said that when country matches were played in town they had to be stopped at a. quarter to four ,to allow the country players to get hack home, and if the amendment were carried they would bo catering for a certain class which could afford to stay in town or return by . motor car. „ ■

Mr Murray said that Mr Evans s remarks had created a better feeling. Fie was very glad the amendment had been brought forward, and he would be modify liis motion in the direction indicated. Tt would give the .sub-unions control of their players, and they would know who were coming into town. i

Mr T. .T. Ennis asked for the opinions of the delegates from the sub-unions on the question, and Mr .T. Peake, speaking for Ellesmere, and Mr H. Hiddlestone for Malvern, said that their subunions were totally opposed to the motion. Mr Peake added that, the Ellesmere sub-union was opposed to subunions being allowed to permit their players to play in town. Mr Walton said that he thought that Mr Hooper’s amendment met the . difficulty very well! The ■meeting was only concerned with the improvement of football. No harm was intended the sub-unions and the idea that they should be done away with was ridiculous. The amendment was then put, to the meeting and carried, twenty-four dele-, gates voting in favour of it and eleven against. Mr Mason then withdrew the motion standing in his name, to the effect that the sub-union rule should be made inoperative during the current season ns far as the North Canterbury Rugby Union was concerned.