RUGBY FOOTBALL

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17233, 12 April 1930, Page 11

RUGBY FOOTBALL

BROADCASTING RIGHTS DELEGATES’S WISE DECISION (Notes by “Onlooker.”) Much satisfaction will be given to owners of radio sets, and inch i limits, by the announcement that the New Zealand Rugby Union will permit the broadcasting of ” ringside” descriptions of Ihe matches played by tne British team in New Zealand during the coming tour. The question as to j whether tne Broadcasting Co. should | he allowed to profit through the action ' of the N.Z.K.F.U. in bringing our, to ’ New Zealand this combination of outstanding foot bill let's from the Old Country is of much less importance than the popularising of the game with the backeoimtry people in particular, by permitting the reports to be sent over the air. The delegates at. the union conference took the view that will Unit support throughout New Zealand, even from those district unions, such as Poverty Bay, which did not exert their influence directly to secure the broadcasting of the tourists’ matches. Those delegates who held that the standing of the game with the general public of Now Zealand is of greater importance than the possibility ol making some slight profit by the sale of the broadcasting privilege may have had in mind tlie outcry caused some years ago on the occasion of an overseas team’s visit to New Zealand, when the privilege of issuing programmes of matches was disposed of with the undertaking that the tourists’ teams for the respective matches would not he disclosed prior to the match. People who wished to know the players and their positions were supposed to buy programmes, and if they did not care to do so, they could not; expect; the Rugby Union to support their attitude by a disclosure of the names of players and their positions. The newspapers were denied the privilege ol publishing beforehand the lists of players, ami people who searched the columns of their dailies for the announcements of the tourists’ teams for given days were disappointed. The situation gave rise to much criticism of the N.Z.K.F.L. at the time, and it was suggested that the commercial side ol tiie sport was being allowed to take , the upper hand. 1 New Zealanders generally have little respect for some of the forms ot amateurism practised abroad, notably in ,Scotland where the players in even the biggest •matches are unnumbered lest their identification should be made j easy for the public. There is, how- i ever, a very healthy aversion from see-/ ing the game of Rugby develop into a commercialised sport, and the majority of Rugby followers would prefer to see any question of profit, its between their amateur union ami the commercial concern which carries on broadcast ing operations, settled in a fashion that will increase rather than dc- . crease the standing of Rugby as a non- I commercial proposition. i The Broadcasting Co. may have made its own road more difficult, in j the negotiations with the N.Z.K.F.H. j executive, by the form of .propaganda 1 employed in an effort to impress its views on the general public. The pica i on behalf of people in the hospitals J only touched the interests of a .small . .’lumber of listeners, and nearly every- ’ one must realise that the privilege of | broadcast ing the British team’s mat- • ches will he a valuable one from the j point of view of the company. The ■hairman of the N.Z.K.E.IT. executive, Mr. S. S. Dean, described the statements of the Radio Go. as ‘‘mere camouflage,” and challenged the company to make a donation to equip liostitals with listening sets. Tt would be far from fair, however, to assume j 'hat all those who favor the broad- ' ••listing of match descriptions are icting in the interests of the Broadcasting Go. There is a real purpose to he served by these broadcasts, and ’n the view of the writer, much good will he done to the cause of the game I •n the Dominion as a result of the delegates’ decision.