English Rugby Union Accused Of “Excess Of Diplomacy”

Taranaki Daily News, 12 November 1934, Page 11

English Rugby Union Accused Of “Excess Of Diplomacy”

STATEMENT ABOUT FOREIGN TEAMS

TTNEXPECTEDLY, the committee of L’ the Rugby Union of England issued, a few weeks ago, another statement about its policy in respect of matches with foreign teams. It was rather an ambiguous statement, and its ambiguity was increased by the fact that it did not reach the newspapers in its original form. The confusion was confounded by the British Broadcasting Corporation’s broadcasting a version of it, subsequently corrected, to the effect that the ban on French clubs had been removed. The statement was as follows:—

The policv of the Rugby Union is that there ehall be no increase in the number of its international matches, but die union will not refuse to consider applications by its affiliated clubs for permission to play matches against clubs of foreign countries, if it is satisfied that Rugby Union football is conducted. and played in such foreign countries in strict accordance with the true spirit and principles of the game.

The qualification “if it is satisfied that Rugby Union football is conducted and played in such foreign countries in strict accordance with the true spirit and principles of the game” was omitted from the statement when it was issued originally. Even when the corrected version was published many people were puzzled by it. The statement that there would be no increase in the number of international matches was plain. enough, but what did the rest of it mean, and what was the necessity for it? From the welter of speculation about the occasion for and meaning of this official statement one probability emerged eventually—that the statement was made with the object of defining the union’s attitude toward the

Rugby-playing countries in Europe, in general, and was not intended to apply specially to France. It is suggested, by men in close touch with official Rugby circles in England, that the union’s ' pronouncement was virtually a recognition of the fact that a European Rugby Federation has been formed—that the union wished to show, diplomatically, that it does not desire to increase the number of its international matches to include games with any of the countries in the federation, but it would not stop any of its clubs from playing matches with clubs in those countries if it were satisfied that the game were conducted properly in them.

In this instance, however, diplomacy defeated itself, by. being too diplomatic. When the full text of the statement reached France the administrators of the game in England were accused of an “excess of diplomacy.” The French could not understand “why, in a communique of this kind, if it was justified at all, the opportunity should have been taken to rub salt into the wound.” British views had been made painfully plain to them, they said, and, though they would “feel it” if British clubs toured in Germany, Italy, and elsewhere, while avoiding France, they saw no necessity for “the publicity given officially to this oblique thrust.”

In addition to annoying French Rugby enthusiasts, the statement revived. in England itself some discussion about the general attitude of the British unions toward modern conditions, and especially about the idea, which still lingers in the minds of some followers of the game, that popularity is bad for the game. There are some enthusiasts of Rugby who dislike having to notice the growth of it; they fear that it is becoming too democratic and also that gatemoney is becoming more important than the game. It is not easy to see how this question is associated with the union’s statement, unless the association is hidden in the rather hackneyed reference to “the true spirit and principles of the game,” but the train of ideas which brought some of the discussion round to this point does not matter. What does interest us at the moment is that occasion was found for defending the existence of the great stands at Twickenham and Murrayfield as “a normal stage in the development of the game, and as not necessarily symbols of the disintegrating influence of money.” “It may be,” says one commentator who is closely in touch with men on the English Rugby Union, “that popularity and the demands of spectators will carry Rugby football away from its true principles. It is equally possible that popularity will be wisely handled and harnessed for the ultimate, good of the game. It is this harnessing of the popular appeal which concerns the Rugby Union authorities./ They have taken their stand against'the-de-velopment of Rugby football- as a spectacle. This is the underlying motive of their latest pronouncement, and it should surely be widely applauded.”: Well,, we might applaud it if we were sure we knew just what we, were desired to applaud. There may/_bb> several worthy motives underlying the English Rugby Union’s statement, but we should not be expected to be all skilled cryptogrammatists, Frankly,. the statement seems to me to be by being described as cryptic; it looks like a good example of mere “blah.” A.L.C.