Rugby Union And Lancaster Park

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24906, 20 June 1946, Page 4

Rugby Union And Lancaster Park

The Canterbury Rugby Union has presented to the public a statement designed to explain its attitude in refusing the use of Lancaster Park for the Rugby League match against the English touring team. Belated as this statement is, the Rugby Union is to be commended for making it. But much in the statement is irrelevant and too much glorifies the record of the union, which appears to set itself too far apart from the public who support it; and to say that is not to discredit or belittle the union’s real achievements. In essence, the Rugby Union’s reply to public criticism of its decision about the Rugby League’s application is based on its opposition to professional football.

It cannot be denied [says the Rugby Union] that the English team is composed of professional footballers. That is the one fact that has not been disputed so far. but it has been suggested that the local League players do not receive any payment for playing football, and therefore are not professionals. Under our rules we are not permitted to make any distinction, for it is definitely stated that a player becomes professional by knowingly playing with or against any Northern Union, Rugby League, or other professional Rugby football player or club. Our position, therefore, is clear. We have accepted a code of rules and, surely, even our critics do not suggest that now we should show so little principle as deliberately to flout any rule which happens to conflict with the expediency of the moment, or with the desires of our critics.

5 It is difficult to see, even having regard to its own quoted rules, which ! refer only to Rugby Union foot- • bailers playing against profes- ’ sionals, how allowing the use of the ground to the League players in any way injures the amateur ’ status of Rugby Union members, who would not be playing. The ; Victory Park Act, on which the union relies, certainly provides ■ under clause 3 (b) that the land i shall be available for “Rugby “football played under the control “or [not “and”] with the sanction “of the committee for the time be- " ing of the Canterbury Rugby Foot- ‘ ball Union ”. That the act provides similarly for the control of cricket by the Canterbury Cricket Association is passed over by the union as none of its concern. It will be noted that the Rugby Union makes no mention of the fact on which it could most strongly rely—that the act provides for the incorporation of the trust “ for the purposes of pro- “ moting and developing football “ and cricket and other amateur “ athletic sports ”, The union is well aware that many amateur cricket sides have played on the park against teams that included professionals; but it cannot escape its responsibility for allowing this to happen by saying that “ professional ‘ cricket has nothing to do with pro- “ fessional football ” ; for it is fully represented on the Board of Trustees, which is responsible for the

“ exclusive control and manage- “ ment ” of a park dedicated to amateur sport. It must be argued that the Rugby Union is not consistent, when; sitting as the union, it refuses to sanction the use of the park by professional footballers; but when represented on the Board of Trustees, it agrees to the use of the park by professional cricketers. It must either sink its principles by conniving, wittingly or unwittingly, at an irregularity, or insist on the exclusion of professionals in all sports; in which case it would sorely embarrass the Cricket Association.