FOOTBALL

Southland Times, Issue 19172, 16 February 1924, Page 12

FOOTBALL

ML BLACK TOUR. ATTITUDE OF SCOTTISH R.U. Writing to Sydney Referee, John Hughes, an ex-Australian Rugby player, now in England, has the following on the Scottish Rugby Union’s attitude over the All Black’s tour:—“The discourtesy of the Scottish Football Union has received universal condemnation in Great Britain. 1 have not met a single follower of Rugby here, or read a single English or Scottish newspaper, that has attempted to defend the action of the S.F.U. It is as well this should be known in Australia and New Zealand. The S.F.U. is entirely out of touch with realities; they have done the game an enormous amount of harm in Scotland ; and, as Mr C. T. W ray, the N.Z.R.U.’s representative here, puts it “They have done Rugby the biggest disservice in its history.” They have not only insulted the All Black and the English Rugby Union, which is making the arrangements for the All Blacks’ tour; but they have given the world a very bad impression of Scottish sportsmanship. Through the courtesy of Mr Wray, who is the hon. secretary of the sub-committee of the English Rugby Union appointed to deal with the All Blacks’ tour, I have been able to see the text of the letter signed by Mr Simson, secretary of the SJF.U., which was sent in answer to the sub-committee’s letter asking whether Scotland would like to have fixtures with the New Zealanders. The sub-committee’s letter was sent in July, but it was not until August 31 that it was answered. The reply, omitting formal parts, hardly does justice to the cold print that sets it down: ‘So far as my committee are concerned,” Mr Simson wrote, ‘1 am instructed to say that they do not want any fixtures with the New Zealanders to be allotted to the Scottish Football Union.” That was all. Not a word about the reasons which prompted the refusal, not a line to tone down its boorishness. Just as I write this I learn that the English Rugby Union, in issuing the provisional list of fixtures, have expressed the hope that any difficulties which exist in regard to fixtures with Scotland will yet be adjusted, and a game between Scotland and the All Blacks arranged either at Glasgow or Moorleith. I hope that New Zealand will decline to accede to this eleventh hour repentance on the part of the S.F.U. The S.F.U. takes itself very seriously; its mission in life is to tend the sacred fires of amateurism, and the vestal virgins of old never tended their fires as the Scottish “lilywhites” tend theirs. The driven snow, is scarcely white beside their austre “amateurism.” Nevertheless, this time they have overstepped the limits of decency. I shall come to,their reasons presently; but although the All Blacks are largely in the hands of their hosts, the English Rugby Union, in regard to a revised fixture list, we cannot help feeling that the English Rugby Union could hardly fail to sympathise with a blunt refusal by N.Z. to be made a catspaw of by the SE.U. This is by no means the first time that the Rugby purists at Edinburgh have bai> ned other countries. In 1893 they broke oif relations with Wales because Arthur Gould, the famous Cardiff and Welsh centre, accepted the presentation of a house from his fellow countrymen on his retirement, and for two years the Wales-Scotland game did not take place. France, too, has come under the ban. No matches with France were played for some yqars because (the humour of it!) the S.F.U. considered that some of the Frenchmen were “too rough.” Does any reader of these notes who remembers Darky Sievwright in his palmy days in Australia, or who knows the gentle methods of the average Scottish forward, see any humouf in such a protest? It is one of the richest things in the history of Rugger. And what of the Wallabies? When thej

c&m? over here in 1908-9 (hey were ignored by the .Scottish Rugby authorities,. So. th°n, we have it—Wales, Australia, France, New Zealand, all proscribed by the Archpriests of Amateurism from across the border. New for the motives which have prompted the boycott There are two reasons for it. The ft’•st is that when the All Blacks were here in 1905 they asked the SF.U. for a guarantee of £5OO for the match against Scotland. This was refused, and an offer of £203 made. Finally it was agreed that the All Blacks should come without a guarantee. and take the whole of the gate. The gate was something between £l5OO and £2OOO, and the All Blacks insisted in sticking to their bargain. The SF.U. have never forgiven them for that. The other reason seems childish. The S.F.U. is jealous of the English Rugby Union, because, as they allege, England ciid not consult them when it was decided to send the invitation to New Zealand. I say “as they allege” because Mr W ray tells me that the matter was actually put up to the International Board, and hardly even considered. At any rate, it wasn't thought sufficiently important to warrant being entered by the secretary of the International Board in his minutes. And yet. since this, the International Board, on the initiative of the Scottish representatives, have had the gall solemnly to pass a resolution that "it is advisable in all future proposals for the visits of Colonial teams, the invitation should come from the International Board!*’ You will doubtless notice the pathetic adherence of these Rugby “Diehards” to the good old word “Colonial.” Its use, after all that has happened since 1914, is typical of the mentality of these people, who still regard Australia and New Zealand as Crown Colonies, and who deal with them on that basis. This, in a nutshell, is the inner history of the latest Scottish boycott. ft has greatly incensed all Rugby followers here, especially the English Rugby Union. Read aright, it ought to be a lesson to the governing body of the R.U. game in Sydney. Rugby is not a caste game—but if you persist in acting on the assumption that it is, then you sound its deathknell. In connection with the foregoing, it must be said that however much the attitude of the Scottish Rugby Union is open to condemnation, it is scarcely fair to term the B.R.U.S opposition to England an anging the tour “off her own bat” as childish. The S.R.U. is entitled to be strongly supported in its contention that tours by Dominion Rugby teams should be arranged by the International Board. The English Rugby Union has certainly done a great deal for the game which originated Ln its present form in that country, but Rugby has now spread fo far and is so extensively played in other countries that it is time every Rugby playing country had a share in its 'On-side Mac.”