MR M’KEON REPLIES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18547, 22 August 1928, Page 10

MR M’KEON REPLIES.

To the Editor. Dear Sir,—l have read your reply to my letter, and must congratulate you on the splendid side-stepping effort you have put up. It is truly editorial. When taken to task, you at once hit back in a manner common to most editors. It is very evident that my remarks stung, and naturally you squealed, just like some of the English R.L. players. But, Mr Editor, I must take great exception to your method of reply. As I stated before, it is side-stepping the real issue, as only an editor can. What I complained about was that you included the Auckland games amongst those played in a like manner to that in Dunedin. This is absolutely contrary to fact. I not only saw the games, but aiso the dinner given to the tourists, and for you to state that the referee (Mr Bull) quite bears out your statement is stretching it too far. What Mr Bull did was to complain that the method of some of the English players in questioning his decisions, some of which even puzzled the Auckland folks, was not playing the game. He made no reference at all to rough tactics or play. That his statement heaps out your general observation, which was most certainly meant to convey the impression that the English played a rough game, the fact of some men talking on the field is surely not rough and unseemly conduct, and could hardly be dealt with by the New Zealand authorities. You know as well as anyone that your object was to convey the idea that the visitors play dirty football all the time. The Englishmen frankly admit that they play hard, rugged “footer,” but then I rather think that South Africa’s visitors have earned a reputation for football of a very similar type. Once again I say you have side-stepped my real question. It is very noticeable that in your account of the now famous test match at Dunedin, your headlines, of the biggest type, and also another grotesque cartoon conveyed the impression that the game was an Irishman’s fight from start to finish. If so how do you account for the fact that the reports state that the match was memorable for speed and cleverness? There may have been some tough play, but I fancy there was a lot of good and thrilling football, also, and yet the account of a senior club Rugby Union match at Wellington a couple of Saturdays ago, wherein the two captains were both ordered off, two more players were made to shake hands, and several other players had a fist in the argument, was put away on almost a back page and no headlines. As regards your statement that you have witnessed Rugby League matches, I must beg to differ with yon, as it is only a short while ago that one of your friends (until recently a prominent Rugby League official) asked you why it was that you were ever ready to jump on the Rugby League code, and you stated in reply that you did not like the game. Asked had you ever seen a League game, you said “No, but I don’t like it!” Sir, I like your paper, but I don’t like your idea of sporting tactics.—l am, etc., ALAN McKEON. 416. Colombo Street, Sydenham. (Any “side-stepping” in this matter is limited to the correspondent’s statements. He first criticised the “ Star ” for referring to rough play, whereas the “ Star ” wrote of “unedifying exhibitions.” Can it be said that the things of which the Auckland referee, Mr Bull, complained (to say nothing of rough play on the West Coast and at Dunedin) were edifying? The report of which the correspondent complains was a Press Association report, sent to every newspaper in New Zealand. It was certainly worth a few headings, but they were in distinctly smaller type than those given to sport from other centres on the same day. As for the “ Star’s” editorial comment, it was temperate, and a mere nothing compared to an editorial article from the Dunedin “Star” which appears in another column. The correspondent s final remarks are grotesquely inaccurate. No such conversation could possibly have taken place.—Ed. “Star.”)