RUGBY CRITICS.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18370, 1 May 1925, Page 9

RUGBY CRITICS.

INCONSISTENT WRITING. "CIRCUMSTANCES ALTER CASES." (specially -written- fob "the press.") (By A. J. Harrop, M.A.). LONDON, March 23. "What docs the 'Morning Post' say about it?" This is the query which meets the Londoner's eye in every direction. In the windows of the "Morning Post" office, in the railway carriages and lifts, in the advertisement columns of other newspapers, and on the hoardings in the streets: " What, does the 'Morning Tost' say about it?" yen may therefore gather, is the advertising slogan of the "Morning Post." It expresses in rhetorical form the opinion of its proprietors that their opinion is worth considering —it is, in fact, a very laudable display of self-respect. Taking the query in the spirit in which, I thought it to be meant, I decided to waste twopence to rind cut what the "Morning Post" said about the England v. Scotland Rugby match at Edinburgh on Saturday last. New Zealanders have good reason to know the "Morning Post." The most venomous attacks upon the All Blacks, printed under the name of F. J. Sellicks, appeared in its columns. To-1 gether with its equally able epntempor-1 ary, the "People," it stood out for "all that was best in British sport" by attributing the worst possible motives. to everything done by anybody in a black jersey on the Rugby field. Since the All Blacks left, Mr F. J. Sellicks has continued a campaign of innuendo and insinuation against New Zealand ! Rugby in a weekly publication (not the "Blue" fiction magazine). In the number of that publication which appeared last week, just before the England-Scot-land mateh, he made some irrelevant remarks about .Edwards, the English forward, reported by the referee in the All Black's match for rough play. Forgetting his previous dictum about the referee as the sole judge, he makes remarks aboutthe alleged provocation th&t Edwards received. What does he know about ittf Nothing, of course, but that does not deter Mr Sellicks from the exercise or the/peculiar powers of invective of which ho is a master. Of course, Mr Sellicks acts solely for the good of the actuated by the best motives, —absolutely impartial—and so on. i give him that much in. My only complaint concerns the extraordinary ideas of what constitutes the good of the game, which he, and the paper which, printed his diatribes, must possess. The England-Scotland Match. So when I read the first telegrams about the match at Edinburgh—telling of fierce play, over-robust tackling, and nasty incidents, 1 felt sure that those twins, devoted to. the worship of clean Rugby, would be bitterly indignant about it all. "What does, the 'Morning Past' say about it?" I asked, myself, mvi likewise wh&.t of wM 'People'?" On Sunday I received a bitter disappointment. The oracle was dunib. Vox Pqpuli waa silent. "The 'Teople," that fine flower of what *» .elegantly termed the gutter Press, did not have anything to. say about the rough play at all, I consoled mjw* with the reflection that tho "People, being what it Was, would not-have a representative at Edinburgh, and wOttM merely use an (agency report. Tomorrow, I thought, the great bulwark of British sport would surely gronaunoe its. verdftpt in no uncertain voice. No petty: considerations of sationajity would silence it. lb my horror the ''Morning Post was strangely *.iute! Even the extraordinary behaviour of that inimitable referee, Mr A. E. Freethy, who watchfd the taking of a kick at goal from behind the posts, escaped comment. Could it possibly be because- any mention of <the fact might possibly be, an argument that the little Welshman was not infallible? I leave it to the reader to judge.

What the Others Say About It. "The Times"; Sqme of the play, in fact, was no longer play at all, ajad from the English point of view it is better to record the two heroie efforts of Myers to break through, Corbett's fatal stagger, «u}<3, several unsuccessful attempts tq drop goals, rather than, the laying-out of Drysdale (Scotland's fullback) on his own goal-line, Colonel Trevor, in the "Daily Telegraph": There was an unusual amount of off'aide play, pome of which it seemed to mo eluded official attention. But there was worse than . off-sldo play. Twice did »n English forward kick a Scotsman, and in each case was the misdeed so obvious that the exclamations of protest were spontaneous and.practicaMy univorsal. In the second of these cases the game had to be stopped for a bit, for Drysdale's head had suffered from this reprehenaible act. The "Daily : Mail": There were also opisodes of an ugly nature, for the referee found it necessary to caution two of England's forwards. In one case the crowd shouted for the offending player to be sent off tho field, and for once ia a way the hoots of the spec* tators appeared to be juatified. Percy Rudd, in the "Daily Cfcron. icle"; The play was not always in the Bpirit of perfect fairness one has grown to aspect when Scot and Sassenach olasli. Thoro ware, ,-indesd, two incidents in which an English player incurred the ire of the crowd, and the demonstration on the second occasion waa punctuated with repeated crieg of ''Send him off!"

Major L. B. TonswiU, in the "Daily Herald": There were two unfortunate incident* The ref'crrce allowed the Scottish forwards to charge down Luddington hefofe he had taken his kick at goal, although, standing in the wrong position—-behind the goal-line—he could not possibly see if the ball was down or not. The other incident was when an English forward appeared to kick the Scottish full-back when he was lying on the ground. The offender was luoky to escape being ordered off.

The "Yorkshire Post": With due deference to Mr Froethy, it must be stated that this is not the ideal position for the referee to take up for placekicks at goal in front of the posts. . . . It is not too much to say that the contretemps of Luddington '3 place-kiek was the tuming'point of a very hard and keenly-fought contest. . . . One English forward must be considered fortunate that what probably was a retaliatory display of oldtime hacking earned no more than an admonition from the referee.

The "Manchester Guardian": One could write more enthusiastically of the defence of the English forwards but for a couple of regrettable incidents where tempers were elearly lost. Waat the "Morning Post" Says. Sow to return to our original query, "What does the 'Mornitig Post* say about it?" Not a word : oout Mr rreethy, the. referee with the keen eye for position (ono is tempted to define Mr Frcethy as a person having position but no magnitude). Not a word about Drysdale being laid out. Not a word about the hacking proclivities of* A. T. Voyce, the English forward and worthy

(Continued at foot of nest column.)

emulator of E. Edwards, now under a cloud (totally undeserved according to Mr Jfc\ J. §ellicks). Merely this: "The game was one of the fiercest ever fought. The feeling at times was so intense among the players that the referee had to intervene.". Not a word, be it noted, that tho chief offenders were English players—no particulars of the incidents—no expression of disapproval. When one thinks of the loving care that would have been lavished on these things if the "All Blacks had been iu the place of the Englishmen, it makes one's blood boil. The "Morning Post" wrote a leading article after one of ihe All Blacks matches on grounds infinitely less than those provided by Saturday's match, as is clearly shown by the opinions I have ? noted. Tbore is no leading article on tugby in the "Post" to-day, but, rather ironically there i* one on a different subject headed "Truth for Truth's Sako." I contend that the case against the "Morning Post"' and the "People" which I have preferred <in previous articles) ii> proven up to the hilt. I* may be some consolation to the All Blacks to know that the papers who attacked them so bitterly are silent today, ind that the great majority who gave them a fair hearing have voiced their disapproval of the English tactics in no uncertain manner. The "Morning Post" I have heard described by a president of the Cambridge Union as the paper which only intolerant people car. read with ease. As regards Rugby, only a morbid curiosity compels one to read it at all. The -last account, one most add, is printed under the name of "our special correspondent" instead of "F. J. Sellicks." Perhaps this may indicate that at last the "Morning Post" hat realised what irretrievable harm an unfair critic can do to a paper. Hope springs eternal in the human breast.