THE RUGBY LEAGUE: A CRITICISM AND REPLY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18546, 21 August 1928, Page 10

THE RUGBY LEAGUE: A CRITICISM AND REPLY.

To The Editor. Dear Sir,—l must take the strongest exception to your remarks in your leading article regarding the supposedly rough play by the English League team in Auckland. I was not present at the West Coast or Dunedin games, but I did witness the three games in the northern city, and most emphatically say that your remarks are grossly unfair. Not in any one of these games was there the slightest degree of rough play. I grant you that the games were hard, but then football is not a parlour game, and when strong, virile men, trained to the hour, meet in a tense struggle, then one does not expect any beg-pardons, but as to rough or foul play, it was entirely absent. For proof of this I refer you to the reports of the Auckland “Star,” “Sun” and “Herald.” Not one line appears in any of these papers as to the rough play alleged by you, and on the contrary they are all in agreement that the games were brilliant in the extreme. I do not, for one moment, wish it to be thought that rough play should be tolerated, but it is particularly noticeable that your paper takes every opportunity of rubbing it in when anything happens in a Rugby League game. No doubt you, like many others in this city, are bitterly opposed to the progress of the code here, but that at least is no excuse for making grossly inaccurate statements. Play the game should be the motto of not only footballers, but newspaper editors as well. It is very apparent that you are biased, because whenever possible you smother up any rough tactics that take place in games of another code, but jump at every chance to belittle the Rugby League game. Now, Mr Editor, be a sport and treat all codes alike. Give the League a fair spin and drop your bias, which is nonsensical, as you have never seen a Rugby League game, but are always ready to condemn.—l am, etc., ALAN L. M’KEON. 416, Colombo Street, Sydenham. This letter bristles with misstatements, which can be dealt with one by (1) The “Star” did not use the words, “ rough play,” in its editorial note yesterday. Here is the whole of the note from start to finish:— Auckland, the West Coast and Dunedin have had very unedifying exhibitions of League Rugby as the English visitors seem to play it, and it is opportune to suggest that the managers of the team should confer with the controlling authorities in New Zealand in a determination to put on end to the unseemly incidents that have marred the team’s tour. One cannot, in strict fairness, lay all the blame on the visitors, for after all it takes two to make a quarrel, even on the football field, and it is sometimes difficult to detect the aggressor. We rather fancy that the management of the game has been habitually lax. The behaviour of the “ disloyalists ” who went Home with the New Zealand team ought to have been checked by a firmer display of authority, and drastic discipline is the only thing that will cure the pre-

sent distemper. That unedifying exhibitions did occur in Auckland was proved by the statement of the referee (Mr Bull) that the Englishmen were “a lot of squealers,” who “ did not play the game.” If there has been no rough play in later matches, then the English managers themselves must be all at sea in their remarks about it.

(2) The “Star” has never previously made any editorial reference to the League code, and has never made any inaccurate statements about it. (3) The “ Star ” has given the League code an absolutely fair and impartial hearing. Last year, when the League president complained that the Christchurch newspapers were not giving the code fair and adequate reports, the secretary (Mr Richardson) interposed that, the “ Star ” must be exempted from such criticism. (4) The “ Star ” is not bitterly opposed to the code. It has thousands of League readers; it has reporters exclusively engaged on League and on no other sport reporting, and League officials have been among its most valued contributors. It has never assigned a Rugby Union reporter to a League match.

(5) So far from “ smothering up ” any rough tactics that take place in games of another code,” the “ Star ” referred editorially on the following dates to rough plav in Rugby:—June 22, 1927; July IG, 1927; May 16, 1928; June 11, 1928. Extracts from these leaders appear in the editorial columns to-day.

(6) The editor has seen Rugby League played, and would not miss next Saturday’s test for worlds. Will Mr Alan L. M’Keon “be a sport ” himself, and admit he has done the “Star” a great injustice?—Ed. “ Star.”