THE FOOTBALL TROUBLE.

Wanganui Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 160737, 25 August 1920, Page 8

THE FOOTBALL TROUBLE.

The decision come to by the Management Committee of the Wanganui RugDy Union last evening, which will exclude four Taihape players from the touring team, will be regretted by the majority of Rugby supporters in Wanganui. The stand taken by some of those who voted in favour of excluding the Taihape players appears to be unreasonable, in fact savours too much of the dog-in-the-manger attitude. This applies particularly to the two officials who tendered their resignation when they thought the majority of their fellowmembers disagreed with their point of view. Evidently they were determined that they were going to have their way in the matter; but why should they have taken up such an uncompromising attitude? What right had the Wanganui Union to issue the ultimatum to the Taihape players to the effect that if they did not go to Palmerston North they would be excluded from the touring team? These men had already made arrangements to get away from their employment for nearly three weeks to go South, and it was unreasonable to insist on them losing further time by going to Palmerston North. It looks as if the Management Committee had erred in not including the Manawatu match on their touring programme. This would have avoided all the trouble which has arisen, and which has to a great extent apparently been of the Wanganui Union’s own making. Another point to be considered is that it is hardly' fair to the Southern Unions that Wanganui should send a weaker team on tour than would have been the case had the Taihape players been included. It may be mentioned that the Taihape men had, already this season visited Wanganui to play in representative games, and they would no doubt have been only

too pleased to go to Pal North last Saturday had it been sible to do so without serious inconvenience. Even if it was a fact, as alleged, that they would have gone to Palmerston North had it not been for the loan! cap match at Taihape, is that any valid reason why the individuals should b« punished hy the parent body? The Taihape clubs’ games had already been seriously interfered with by representative games, and the subUnion was naturally anxious to continue them. Any blame connected with that must lay with the sub* Union, not the players, who simply obeyed the behest of their controlling body. While as a principle, the Rugby Union is right in holding that representative matches must take preference over local cup fixtures, there are’ exceptions to every rule, and the explanation given by the secretary of the Taihape Union shows that an exception might reasonably have been made in the case of the cup match played at Taihapo last Saturday. The position appears to be that the Wanganui Union did not ask the Taihape players if they would be available for the Manav/atu match, but took the high-handed attitude of ordering them to go. In the circumstances, the Taihape players cannot be blamed if they resented this dictatorial action, and even if they had been available had declined to be treated in this manner. Why is it that the Taihapo men have been singled out for exclusion from the louring team, when several other players have with less reason not taken their place in representative teams in which (hoy were chosen. One other point: the Taihape Cup fixture was arranged before the country players were informed about the Manawatu match; and that being the case, the highhanded action of the local Union in sending the “stand and dclicm” message is all the more blameworthy. The local Union lends itself to the charge of being prompted by parochialism—the desire to sec local representatives selected rather than, a district representative team.