A PUBLIC DEBT TO FOOTBALL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20389, 21 April 1928, Page 25

A PUBLIC DEBT TO FOOTBALL

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — Swift-footed, the season for winter pastimes is once move upon us and our youth will be crowding out to play and watch those vigorous games bo suited _to our vigorous climate. Of the respective merits of those different games, this writer makes no comparison. His affection, shared by the majority of this community, for the game of Rugby, prompts these comments. These comments, for which excuses are not offered, are not the fruit of an idle moment, but are the result of an extensive playing perio'd, of a similar period as a club and other official, and a genuine desire to see our favourite game bring forth the best results. There is, however, no intention to express opinions as an official. Officialdom has its own method of putting its opinions betore the public. There is, nevertheless, a definite intention of trying to express what is felt to be the opinion, to often inarticulate, of those supporters of the game whosfe interest is most worthy and most desirable. In the first place it must be recognised that within the memory of a large number of living persons tremendous changes, not only in the organisation, but in the game itself, have taken place. With the growth of the _ game, rules have multiplied and crystallised, methods of control have been standardised, organisation has been brought to a high standard of efficiency, and as one of the results of a growing public interest, large sums of money are yearly handled by unions and the parent body. Much could be written of the history of the game. The advantages or disadvantages of the present rules could, and do, form the subject of innumerable debates. The organisation is not immune from attack, while many an impecunious business man doubtless sighs with envy at the financial turnover. It is not within the scope of this articles ,to deal with any of these aspects. The appointment of union officials may he safely left where it new is, in the hands of the clubs. The demands of the players and public alike may just as safely be left in the hands of the union,' while the actual control of the games, by referees, organised ns they are, may be a matter. of ,-individual, but not general, criticism. About -what then, may it be asked, is all this spilling of ink? It may be_ fairly assumed that the players are in the game (to quote Charles _ Kingsley in another connection) because it gives them endurance, promptness, courage, sellcontrol, as well as health and cheerfulness; that the officials give their time to assist young men in furthering such worthy objects; but that the majority of the public go to watch the game for the saino reason is an assumption that 1 fear I cannot make. That the public as a whole enables our present organisation to exist and flourish it would be useless to deny. That in other ways it has helped along the game, I personally should willingly concede. For example, men on the sunny side ol 40 can readily recall some matches where it did not need (though it was often forthcoming) the encouragement of spectators to “ put in the boot ” and adopt other unfair and unfootball-like tactics. Happily, and no doubt largely on account of healthy public opinion, such incidents can now be only few and far between. Further, to men who’are still young, the ordeal of playing before bitterly hostile suburban, rural, and rival town spectators is a very poignant memory. Again, acknowledgment has to be made to the supporters of the game for their praiseworthy stand against such tactics. I submit that the average spectator goes and continues to go to see the matches (to put it frankly) because it is worth the money as an entertainment and not from any idea of helping the gam4. I admit that the love of the game is strong, the tendency to hero-worship ever present, the desire for excitement-retains its hold on all ages and . the: tendency to ■criticise performances which they cannot emulate, is with some a passion. All these are motives for attendance, but whatever the motive,, top spectators thinly that- they r havb v paid; 'theif debt' ’to the game with • their admission money. If they think fairly about it they will realise that their responsibility does not end- there. They have, as I have indicated, dorte much to assist in the root-, ins' but of evil practices. There remains to be tackled a very, definite but insidious and growing evil which, if unchecked, will eventually ruin the game as a game. The reference is to ; betting. This evil is more gross than the illegal use of fist or boot. Evil upon evil follows on its train. They could be illustrated by many painful examples. The results are sufficiently obvious. The gambling spirit is claimed to have been born in man. If it has, there are more than enough avenues to indulge it without preying upon football. The implied insult to the players on whom they bet should deter all right thinking persons from participating in such a practice. Perhaps no actual harm follows a trivial bet between intimate friends, but intimate friends can have a difference of opinion without backing it. On the other hand, they- are perhaps unwittingly, but most surely, lending the weight of their opinion to the harpy and the cheat. It is bad form to bet on football, and every one should have the moral courage not only to abstain himself, but to denounce it in others. In this way, by no longer remaining dumb, irresolute and passive, a grave blot upon our football can be removed and a debt the public owes to football liquidated..—l am, etc., Is LAY.