Interference With Liberty Of The Subject In Rugby Gaine

Taranaki Daily News, 3 June 1935, Page 12

Interference With Liberty Of The Subject In Rugby Gaine

BAN ON UNIVERSITY TEAM’S VISIT • . TO EASTERN AMERICA ’

FTER much cogitation, an interna- : ■tional sports congress, sitting in Brussels; a few days ago, arrived at an idealistic definition of amateurism. Possibly that • was ‘ useful work, although- there is notfi- " ing in the definition which is not fully obvious to any intelligent person. , It may be regretted, however, that the A congress did not tackle another question which is of more practical importance —the question of the liberty of countries to frame regulations for their domestic sports, and arrange details of the administration of them, without interference from other countries, so long as there is no conflict with amateurism

and so long as they are prepared to enter on a; basis .’of international rules V ’ any international engagements to which thfey are admitted. The tendency of some .organisations in. sport to inter- , . i fere with the liberties of others needs to be checked. * « * >• . Rugby football in New Zealand has suffered, and is still suffering, from interference by the national unions of Great Britain and Ireland in this country’s domestic affairs in the game. A plain man cannot understand why the British and Irish unions and their international board cannot allow us to have the form of Rugby we desire, provided we abide by a common set of rules for inter*- , national matches. But the controlling . authorities of the Home unions are riot of that type of plainness. They autocratically foist their own ideas on to our z club and domestic interprovincial game, and New Zealand meekly abides by their dictatorship, for the sake of an infrequent interchange of visits —three ■.< visits by British teams to the Dominion in 30 years, three visits by New Zealand teams to Great Britain and Ireland in - 30 years.- . ‘ * * * This is an old subject, but one is led to return to it because there is evidence that-the spirit of the British official attitude toward the game in other parts ' of the world has not changed—evidence that the New Zealand delegates to this year’-s Imperial Rugby Conference will have to fight very hard and with an acute appreciation of tactics if they are to obtain any substantial concessions. Even the Rugby Union of England, / which was believed to be more favourably inclined toward the Dominions . / than the other Home unions, is still disposed toward flourishing the cane of ■ the elderly school master. .*.#•» In recent years teams of Rugby players from Cambridge University have made visits to the eastern parts of the United States of America, but not as official .?■/ university teams. Their tours have bden partly social in character. They have done much to assist the growth of the Rugby Union game in the eastern United States; so much, indeed, that the .Cambridge University Rugby Club decided that this year’s visit should be made by an official university team. The game had improved sufficiently in the area visited, and the public interest in the matches had increased so much, that an official status for the team was considered desirable for the purposes of both relations with the organisations visited and the selection and control *■ of the players. , # * * . V. However, neither the Americans who ' issued the invitation nor the Cambridge University Rugby Club had reckoned with the insular and short-sighted views of the administrators of the body which clings proudly to its old title, THE Rugby Union. While the American visits of Cambridge players were unofficial the Rugby Union took no notice of therm As soon as the Cambridge University club put them on an official ana properly-controlled footing, which should have proved satisfactory to everyone concerned, the Rugby Union of England placed them under a ban! « » '* Here is the explanation of J. Milnes, president of the Rugby Union of Eng-

land: “We are 'anxious that our. universities should play against universities of other countries, ahd those who arranged the previous tours to America did it so well and the tours-became so successful we felt that the time had come to take stock. We did' so, and came to the conclusion that we must forbid further tours until the United States formed one body to control' Rugby. At present there are three bodies—one to look after finance, another to draw up the rules, and the third to arrange matches. We in England feel that thfere should be one authority only, and until that.comes about must refuse to sanction further tours.”

From, that we may conclude that the Rugby Union, would hot have interfered if the tours had not helped to put trie game In the eastern part of thfe United States bn a . sounder footing. ,AS sopn as responsible authorities had undertaken control of the tours the Rugby Union stepped in just because the form of administration, of the game in- the United States does not square with its own ideas. It has no thought. in‘,this matter, for the garne. as something to be played: it is concerned only ■ with imposing its own ideas of organisation on the 'American players.. There is .not the slightest touch of, diplomacy in its exercise of powers in this affair, not any sign of common sense.

These British Rugby, legislators, and administrators make me. think not so much of a collection of Hitters or MuSsolinis as of the stubbornly autocratic old men who r.ule a tribe of Australian aborigines; their Outlook is scarcely any wider, their conservatism is just as rigid. -