Rugby Rulings.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 494, 1 July 1932, Page 6

Rugby Rulings.

To the Editor. Dear Sir,—Your leaderette on the above brought home to me the great strength and prevalence of opinions on Rugby that seem to me, as also to the Home authorities, absolutely erroneous. Surely it is obvious that the novel introduction of half-time retirals and emergency players by New Zealand was a definite breakaway from the intentions of the founders of the game and a deliberate step towards professionalism. If it is not obvious I must ask for space to show that it is. The idea behind those introductions is plainly this: It is so essential that we win that we must go off at half-time and put our heads together to tnake schemes and listen to the advice of expert onlookers. For we must win. We must win. If we don’t, our record will not be so attractive and fewer thousands will come to pay at the gates. And, of course, if there were no spectators paying at the gates, we would not play. And if one of our side gets hurt we are then handicapped, and have less chance of winning so we must have fresh men ready to come on. Yes, sir, it seems to be that the spectator is much more important than the game: in fact, if the spectator becomes restive or bored innovations must be thought out to please him. And dirty play is not only thought to be possible, but is actually expected. Doctors are paid fat cheques to attach themselves to unions, insurances are taken out on behalf of players, and first-aid men dance around the fields of play. Have the members of the New Zealand Union never stopped to consider the question: “Is it absolutely necessary to win?” Evidently not, as they still persist in breaking the rule which states that a representative side must not forgather and practise before a match. Rugby is a game, not a business. A man who cannot afford to indulge in the luxury of a game should not expect the public to give him his pleasure. A body controlling a game should leave all but the actual central administration to the people who are enjoying themselves by playing. To prevent a man from playing for any team he likes is to assume that he is bad sportsman enough to choose the best: to leave out a man because he plays goif instead of training is to imply that Rugby is his job and he must stick to it; to flout the controlling body by breaking the traditions and rules is to show a desire for a different game.

Great Scott! Even when relief workers get together for a game there has to be talk of trophies and of sides “ ringing-in ” players. It would be good to see a good match again, but it would be necessary to go Home and I can’t afford that.—l am, etc., DISAPPOINTED.