The Christchurch Marist Football Club and the Canterbury Rugby Union

New Zealand Tablet, Volume LI, Issue 15, 10 April 1924, Page 28

The Christchurch Marist Football Club and the Canterbury Rugby Union

The executive of the Marist Football Chib has issued, a statement ,in reference to the actions of the chib and the Canterbury Rugby Union-in dealing with the Payne trophy and the suspension of the Marist Club. The executive says: “The club will not apologise, because it has committed no offence. It will not- withdraw the letter to the Canterbury Rugby Union, which was a manly and honorable letter framed to meet the Special demands of the moment. If a member of the Otago Union has been allowed to insult the honor of Canterbury’s champion club, and if Canterbury has failed in its duty to defend the honor of its champion club, that champion club must act in its own defence. We must submit to the. unjust and invalid suspension rather than allow our honor to be besmirched by the vile accusations of ‘ ringing-in.’ We are confident that any other club would have acted as the Marist Club has acted. The Marist Club has violated no rules of Rugby. The action of the club in regard to the Payne trophy match was the only course to be followed consistent with the laws and traditions of Rugby and consistent with the dictates of personal honor, of manliness, and of justice. “The club claims to have acted in a perfectly constitutional and honorable manner. In preparation for the match the team trained well and aimed to reproduce championship form, and no suggestion of neglect or breach of the rules can be alleged against the club. The club’s only offence seems to be taken from the letter to the Canterbury Rugby Union, including a refusal to play. An analysis of the letter will show it to be a perfectly correct and courteous communication. This was admitted by members of the New Zealand Union when the club’s appeal was before that body. The Payne trophy match is a challenge match, not a union competition match. The Marist. Club had precisely the same freedom to play or not to play for the Payne trophy as the Canterbury Union has to play or not to play in the Ranfurly Shield match. The letter was also declared by members ,of the New Zealand Union to be not discourteous.’ This independent and impartial opinion should be worthy of acceptance. The letter was written for the specific purpose of repudiating the cruel charge of ■ ‘ ringing-in ’ and as a fearless challenge to the effect that the club was prepared to face any inquiry as to the eligibility of the players. It was as well known to the union as to the Marist Club that an impression had been created that the Marist Club had been caught ‘ ring-ing-in ’ two unqualified players —Mullins and Divine, Mr, Harris, of the Otago Union, gave additional strength to this impression by his remark, which was quoted in the Dunedin and Christchurch papers, that ‘the Marists want to win this match at all costs.’ It was widely believed that the Marists were guilty of these unfair and unsportsmanlike tactics under circumstances known to the union to whom the letter was written and to the club who wrote the letter. This statement was included as a declaration by the Marist Club that the inclusion of these two men was beyond question, and that the club was prepared to face any inquiry or trial in the event of the calumny taking the shape of a formal accusation before a tribunal of Rugby control, or even in a higher court. It should be remembered that the ‘ ringing-in ’ charges had taken such definite shape that a prominent legal authority gave the opinion that there was ground for a libel action: hence this clear, defined, and unflinching declaration issued by the Marist Club. That this charge of ‘ ringing-in ’ was no imaginary fancy of the Marist Club is proved conclusively by documents in the club’s possession quoting recognised Canterbury Rugby authorities to the effect that the club was guilty; likewise the following quotation from a leading article in the Christchurch Star of September 15< —“Ringing-in” is such a deadly sin in connection with any sport that one would expect the Marist Club to go to any length to avoid the suggestion of such an offence in connection with the Payne trophy match.” The club was thus Unjustly condemned by the public. The club was- undefended by the Canterbury Union, which should have acted as its advocate and friend. The club was thus forced to take a determined stand in its own defence. The members of the club are proud of-their success on the football field, hut their fame as footballers is a very secondary consideration compared with their honor. As men they feel keenly , the unjust accusation of the vile charge of ‘ ringing-in.’ A most remarkable anomaly exists in the case of the Marist Club. The question has been four times before bodies of Rugby controlonce before the Canterbury Union, and three times before the New Zealand Unionbut on all four occasions the club has had no opportunity of defence or explanation—a strange anomaly which should urge reform in Rugby penal procedure.” J . . ; -The Canterbury Rugby Union later briefly discussed the statement issued -by the Marist Club. The chairman (Mr. ■S v F. Wilson) said he did not wailt to stand in the way of any club or stop it from placing its case before a meeting of delegates. There could' be no fairer tribunal than a- meeting composed 'of fellow ; footballers. Personally he could - not understand - why - the; club had \ not ; appealed/ to' meeting 'of delegates before if ,it had considered its . sen-

tenge - unjust, for obviously the - only thing to do, under the rules was -to appeal to * a general- meeting. The club had said in its ; statement that it . thought it would not get a fair run, as the general meeting would be outweighed by a biased chairman and acommittee /whoseminds were already made up. Accordingly he moved‘'That a general meeting of delegates be called for next Saturday .evening, at a time and place to be arranged, and that Mr. F. T. Evans be asked to' take the chair, and that the Marist Club be invited, to send delegates to state its case.”' In seconding the motion Mr. A. Dey said that probably the Marist Club was not aware of the fact that there were fifty-two delegates at a general meeting of the union-, so that the suggestion that the meeting could be swamped by the fifteen members of the Management Committee was out of the question. If the committee refrained from voting there would be thirty-eight disinterested'delegates without any. feeling one way or the other. He was quite prepared to stand by the decision of the delegates. Mr. Davis asked if the Marist Club had been consulted in this matter of a general meeting.

Mr. Dey stated that, whether or not the club had been asked, it was the union’s duty to give them an opportunity of appealing or explaining. _ Dr. Seed: We have been a long lime finding out our duty. . Mr. McPhail: We may as well be constitutionally sound, even if late.

The motion was then carried unanimously. A press message on April 4 stated: There will be no all-green jerseys on the Rugby, fields this season. Marist Old Boys’ Football Club has decided to sever its association with the Canterbury Rugby "Union. It claims that the union’s action in calling a meeting of delegates for to-morrow evening -came too late. The concluding portion of its letter, conveying this decision to the union executive, says: “We wish it to he understood that this reply is not meant to convey any reflection on the Rugby Union or the proposed meeting of delegates. The Marist Club has suffered so much because of the long-en-during suspension of its 200 members that some of the consequences are now irreparable. All football clubs know that their organisation demands enthusiasm and encouragement, but there is no man connected with the Marist Club who could, at this stage, undertake the task of reorganising the Marist Brothers’ Old Boys’ Football Club as an affiliated Rugby club, with any prospect of satisfactory results. The Marist Old Boys’ Association will revert to its original status as a purely social organisation, leaving adhesion to any outdoor game purely a matter for any member or group of members. Further details will be decided at the annual meeting of the association.” « -

Last Saturday evening the curtain was rung down on what has been one of the most unfortunate and regre table episodes in the history of Canterbury sport. At the special meeting of delegates convened by the' Canterbury Rugby Union (to which the Marist Chib bad declined to send representatives) the action ,of the Management Committee in dealing with the case was endorsed by a three to one majority. It was also decided-to cancel the affiliation of the Marist Club to the Rugby Union. In effect this means that the Marist Club ceases to exist; officially so far as Rugby football in Canterbury is concerned. At the annual meeting of the M. 8.0.8. Association, held last Sunday, it was unanimously decided to form two sections in athletics, and to apply to the Canterbury Rugby League and the Canterbury Football Association (Soccer) for affiliation. - - -