RANFURLY SHIELD

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27498, 19 September 1950, Page 6

RANFURLY SHIELD

Legal Interpretation Oi Rules NECESSITY DEPRECATED PA WELLINGTON, Sept. 18. “I think it is a pity that the laws of a sport have to be the, subject of legal interpretation,” said Mr J. H. Parker after an interpretation of the Ramurly Shield laws had been read at today’s executive meeting of the New Zealand Rugby Union. He was not questioning the correctness, of the interpretation, but bodies administering the sport observed the laws as they operated in practice. .‘‘The legal interpretation of rule 10 is that any challenge, which includes special challenges, must pass on to the new holders of the shield, but there is nothing in the rules to say that the new holder must accept the financial arrangements made for a special challenge by the previous holder, Mr Parker said. The chairman, Mr A. St. C. Belcher, said the proper procedure was for the council of the New Zealand Rugby Union tq examine the rules and put forward notices of motion which would give the delegates at the annual meeting an opportunity for clarifying any points. One would be certain to be special challenges and the financial obligations involved. As Wairarapa had announced its intention not to play any shield challenges, it was decided to reply to its protest that it had not beep consulted before being ordered to play South Canterbury that its protest was not in order. Mr Belcher said that the executive’s interpretation was that a dispute had been created in that there were challenges and Wairarapa had announced its intention not to play. The laws laid down that the executive had power to decide where there was / a dispute.