THE OTAGO RUGBY UNION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23796, 1 May 1939, Page 13

THE OTAGO RUGBY UNION

ro THE EDITOR Sir, —Your report of the proceedings at the inquiry by the committee of the O.R.F.U. on the case of the senior player who was ordered off, is interesting from the fact that the three delegates of the club to which this player belongs devoted all their energies to mitigate the offence that was alleged, while the rest of the members seemed afraid to pass an opinion. Two of the club’s delegates could have only hearsay evidence, as they were at Carisbrook during the first spell, and the other delegate’s remarks had no bearing on the matter, Mr Cavanagh’s remark that the players had to be protected reads strange. As he was fighting hard for the alleged aggressor, one can only infer that he meant that the players must be protected from the referee. I think this case shows that the fact of some clubs having three members on the committee, while two other senior clubs have none, is not in the interest of the snort. A rule should be introduced that while senior clubs should be allowed three delegates, only one of them should be a member of the general committee. The use of proxies should be limited also to a certain distance from the centre. If a club like West Taieri has no member with enough interest in the game to attend the annual meeting, then no hardship would be imposed if it lost its vote instead of handing it on to a member of a city club.—l am, etc.. April 30. Onlooker. 10 THE EDITOR Sir, —At this week’s meeting of the Rugby Union, the adjudication of the case of the Southern player who was ordered off for allegedly striking an opponent provided some ground for interesting comment. Messrs Cavanagh. Pearson, and Wootton did their utmost to procure the acquittal of the player, and. failing that, to get the penalty reduced. Mr Cavanagh said that while the committee had to protect our referees, it had also to protect our players. This remark seems somewhat ambiguous. Did he mean that the committee had to protect the Southern Club’s players, or players in general? And against whom did it have to protect the players? Was it from the referees, or from the players themselves? I think the Referee’s Association should ask Mr Cavanagh to clarify his statement. I understand that representatives of clubs sat on the union first of all in the interests of football But it seems the three representatives of the Southern Club—a liberal number by the way—are there primarily in the interests of, the Southern Club. The president, and those members who refused to reduce the very lenient sentence passed on the player concerned, are to be complimented on the stand they took. —I am, etc.. Justice.