THE RUGBY INTERNATIONAL MATCHES.

Otago Witness, Issue 1891, 17 February 1888, Page 25

THE RUGBY INTERNATIONAL MATCHES.

" What about the internationals ?" is a question that is being asked by Rugby footballers in all parts of England without a satisfactory reply being forthcoming. At the recent meeting of the Rugby Union it was apparent that a great difficulty had again sprung up between England and Scotland, but this time the last-named union is supported by both Ireland and Wales. The main causfi of the difficulty is practically this — the committee of the Rugby Union arrogate to themselves the sole right to formulate all alterations in and additions to the laws of the game. This course of action — which, to the casual observer, seems to say the least to be rather high handed — is naturally objected to by the three sister unions. They claim, and we think justly, to have a voice in these matters. The proposal of the Scottish Union last season that an international board should be formed to deal with all such questions partially fell through owing to the refusal of Mr Rowland Hill and his colleagues to join. This action cave rise to considerable irritation, and in the end the result has been an offensive and defensive alliance between Scotland, Wale?, and Ireland, all of whom refuse to recognise the system of scoring by points promulgated by the Rugby Union last spring. Seeing the prospect of holding the chief matches of the season endangered, the Rugby Union certainly did offer a slight concession — namely, that the matches be played under the rules of the country in which they are held ; but this was, as everybody expected, declined. The result has been a deadlock. It is apparently a very trivial matter that now blocks the way to the holding of the international matches ; but there is more behind this than appears at the first glance. If Scotland, Wales, and Ireland give way, it is a tacit acknowledgement of the claim of the London committee — a committee that, without exaggeration, we may say, is virtually self-elected. The claims of the combined countries are both just and logical, and we cannot see how, without loss of dignity, they can budge an inch from the position they have taken up. The main argument of the Rugby Union is that they originated the game, and represent, or are supposed to represent, far more clubs than the other three unions combined, and are therefore the authority on such matters. This is quite true, bat at the same time they seem to ignore the fact that all clubs playing onder : Rugby Union Rules are not affiliated to them,' One thing ia oertain^ that before, thq

" Internationals" can be played one side or the other must give way. A gentleman who is usually well posted on such matters, tells us that it will not be the Scotchmen and their allies. The first move must, therefore, come from Mr Hill and his colleagues, and we appeal earnestly to these gentlemen not to allow what we can consider little else than personal selfishness to rob the season of 1887-8 of ita most important contests. They must not forget that though at one time they were fully entitled to the position they now claim, Rugby football has increased in popularity to such an extent in Scotland, Wales, and Ireland that the representatives of those countries logically claim to have some voice in its government, or, failing this, establish purely Home Rule.— Athletic News.

The statement of JMr Rowland Hill at the meeting of the Rugby Football Union might be read with profit by certain people as showing that the claim for Home Rule is not confined to politics, but is affecting even such highly esteemed authorities as those who promulgate the code of laws under which the oldest of winter games is played. It is also instructive from the curious parallel it affords. There is probably no sporting parliament which commands such general respect and obedience as the English Rugby Union ; yet when that body decided to alter the laws of the game upon its own responsibility the unions of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales combined and refused to accept the new legislation. The authorities of the other three countries offered an international board to make new laws; England, without being paramount, being granted a preponderance of voting power. To this suggestion the English union refused to agree, but proposed that the other three countries should send representatives to the general meetings of the English body. As this course would, to a large extent, have placed tho unions of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales upon the same footing as ordinary clubs, it was naturally declined ; and the latest suggestion is that international matches— to many people the most attractive illustrations of the game— should be decided under the lawo of the country in which the contest is played. That this offer will be accepted we may fairly assume and under the circumstances it speaks well for the wisdom of the committee presided over by Mr Leonard Stokes. That the question should have reached bo unsatisfactory a phase is eminently to be regretted; but we trust the lesson will not be lost. The English Rugby Union made the laws of the game, and is naturally the oldest of the governing bodies; moreover, it has a greater number of clubs affiliated to it than the other three unions put together. The position into which it has been led is therefore largely excusable.— Daily News.