ROWING SELECTORS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21153, 9 April 1932, Page 12

ROWING SELECTORS.

CRITICISM OF APPOINTMENT. MISUNDERSTANDING EXPLAINED. [BY TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON. Friday. "The recent criticism by several local associations of the action of the New Zealand Rowing Council in appointing selectors is entirely clue to lite minutes of the annual meeting being misread," stated Mr. E. Innes, chairman of the council. "Tlie discussion at the meeting was fairly lengthy, the motion regarding selectors being considered fully, but no decision was come to, other than to refer back to the associations not the appointment of selectors, but the proposed new rule as submitted by Canterbury and Wanganui," said Mr. Innes. "Otago and Canterbury have unfortunately interpreted the minutes as being an authority far local associations to nominate selectors, but no instruction whatever was given by the meeting in this direction, no new rule being adopted. The council, in due course, followed the customary procedure and appointed the selectors. The action of Canterbury in circularising other associations is to be deprecated, as these associations obviously have been misinformed in regard to facts.

The Otago and Canterbury Associations endeavoured at the last meeting of delegates of the New Zealand Amateur Rowing Association it: October to have the selectors elected by the delegates of the various rowing associations. Selectors were appointed by the council of the NewZealand Association to cl;oose the only two representative crews which have travelled abroad. Until recent years crews from New Zealand were debarred from competing abroad, owing to the difference in the interpretation of the amateur definition in rowing, and consequently no rules relating to the method of election of selectors of crews were incorporated in the constitution of the New Zealand Amateur Rowing Association.