"NOT ENGLISH, YOU KNOW."

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1539, 7 September 1912, Page 12

"NOT ENGLISH, YOU KNOW."

From time to time letters have appeared in this column re non-invitation of New Zealanders to England, presumably on account of "methods." An interesting interview with Sir. Neil Galbraith, which was published this week, has moved another to voice himself—quite vigorously. He states:— Sir,—lt i 3; obvious .to anyone capable of Tending between the lines of the English Rugby Union's letters, and Mr. Neil Galbraith's interview of a day or two ago, that New Zealand has been "turned down" this coming season by the International Board in favour'of South Africans (though the latter players..went Home a couple of years ago, and 'New Zealand has not visited England Bince 1905-6), because of "certain methods of play" that are not approved. '■ It is somewhat late in the day for Mr. Marriott or. any members of his board to hurl the charge of rough play, if that is what is meant.- Engby as it is understood in New Zealand; is Dot a game to be played in a hot-house, nor is it intended to be played by pink and white young men with delicate constitutions. Yet in comparison to American football it is a Tefined—almost esotic—athletic recreation. In short, it is a game for strong healthy men in prime condition, and if there are evidences of robustness in our "methods," it is a sign of that rude health we all like to see in a baby boy or a baby nation. Our "methods" were those that won the day, which is probably making the "galled jade wince," and no specific charges of outstanding rough play can bo recalled in connection with the "All Blacks" at this late date. If roughness is imputed—the charge re "methods" is 'vogue—it could bo easily pointed out that England has had its Swanuells as well as its swallows. I cannot help thinking that the troublo lies deeper in the politics of football—and that South Africa has a pull on a rope invisible to our Rugby. Union's representative in London. Time will tell.—l am, C °'' TAMATE PATENE. Wellington, September 2. IS THIS CONSISTENT? Sir,—There are, I am 6ure, many persons like myself who cannot support the League gnme on its present basis, but at tho same time havo no sympathy for the attitudo and «ctions of the New Zealand Rugby Union in regard to the expulsion from its ranks of persons who have played tho,League game, or havo assisted as officials in inti-oduuirig tlie jftime. The Rugby Union disqualifies a man for merely taking part in n League practice game, or even for refcrceing in a League game, for the reason that tho League countenances professionalism. It is immaterial to tho Hugby Union whether a man can declare that ho is an amateur according to tho strictest interpretation of that word. It is sufficient that he has practised Northern Union Rugby—out he goes. Ono would suppose that tho Rugby Union, by keeping its members free from the slightest taint of n gome which has professionals amongst its players, is a model to be followed by all bodies partisan to amateur sport. .But no, the Rugby Union is inconsistent in its relations to other brandies of sport. Tt does not debar a man from playing under its "amateur" code if he has played cricket: villi professional cricketers, although it might debar the prnfpssiounl cricketer, but the point I wish to stress is rhut the Rugby Union's "amateur" code does not debar professional runners from playing under its rules. How it can reconcile its action in admitting professional runners as members on the quo hand, and expelling and refusing to reinstate amateur League footballers on the other hand, I fail to soe.— lam,etC,, JUNO.