SPORTSMANSHIP.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17564, 15 June 1925, Page 7

SPORTSMANSHIP.

To the Editor. Sir, —In your Sporting and Athletic page of Saturday last there appeared a paragraph in which a writer to the Sydney “ Bulletin ” referred to some putrid sportsmanship on the part of the N.S.W. Rugby League. A more bigoted statement I have never read, and as a Rugby League supporter would ask you to be good enough to allow me a little space in which to contradict these views. Either the “Bulletin’s" correspondent knew nothing of the facts as to why the Soccer people were refused the Sydney Cricket Ground or, if he did, he is writing a pack of lies. Some years ago the controlling bodies of several sports grounds in Sydney began to ask such ridiculous rentals for the grounds that the three bodies (Rugby, Soccer and League) got together and made an honourable agreement that they would not tender above a certain figure, and this agreement was properly carried out until a new ground was opened up, and the Soccer people went behind the backs of the Rugby League and Union bodies and put in a tender a bit higher than the others, with the result that they got the ground. The other bodies heard of this and thereupon cancelled the agreement and told the Soccer authorities that they would not associate with them. As regards the statement that the League put on that big match as a counter-attaction, this is a deliberate misstatement, as these matches are arranged months ahead. And this being the case, why should they have put their game off to satisfy a body of men who had showed theih a point? Because one shop has a sale, do all the others shut their shops up? Years ago, when the N.S.W. League was a struggling body, were the best grounds given to them for an inter-State match? No, sir, they often had to play on open paddocks, and now that their game is more popular than the other two put together, and they control all the big grounds, some people without any sense of fairness in them rush into print and accuse them of “putrid sportsmanship.’’ T wonder, Sir, if the writer of that paragraph; heard of a piece of “ putrid sportsmanship” that occurred in our own city last, year, when two overseas League teams were refused the use of Lancaster Park. When the first team (Sydney Varsities) played here they had to play on a very secondrate park, while Lancaster Park (the public's park) was shut up. On th*> other occasion tho English team had to play on an inferior ground while this time a junior match was played at Lancaster Park. And when the application for the use of the park was considered by tbe Rugby Union (net by tbe Board of Control) tbe president cf that body stated that tbo reason tli© Rugby League were refused the park was because Marist Old Boys refused to play a certain game there. Flow is tbao fur sportsmanship? Almost on a par with, that of the Otago Rugby Union, which tried to take legal action to prevent a gam© of League football being played there. And what is tb© result of these actions by tho Rugby L'nions? Tbe result is that the game is going ahead fast in Christchurch and is firmly established in Dunedin. Years ago sinA lar things to this happened in South Wales and Queensland, with th* result that to-day no Rugby at all is played in the latter State and in the former the League game is supreme. Tak© the attendances at club matches last year: Average nt Leajrito 10,000 to 12,000; at Rugby Union 2000 to 3000. Tbe greatest crowd at a football match ever held in Sydney under League rules, 63,000; at Rugby Union. 30.000. These are figures from tho “ Referee.” the finest sporting paper south of the lin e and they speak the truth. And who knows but what this might be tbo position in New Zealand in vears to come. Already it is tbe ease in Auckland, and it may be slow in the other centre.**, but it will be sure. In conclusion, sir, let me say to those who write in a similar tone, to tbo person who wrote the paragraph that you reprinted, “Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.” —I am. etc., A LEAGUE ENTHUSIAST.