RUGBY TANGLE

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 302, 10 September 1918, Page 7

RUGBY TANGLE

RULES OF SATURDAY'S MATCH SUGGESTION OF AN AGREEMENT WELLINGTON UNION TO BE ASKED FOR EXPLANATION. As a sequel to the WellingtonAuckland Itugby match having been played with certain •modifications on Saturday, a special meeting of the Management C'ommitteo of the New Zealand Rugby Union was hold last evening to discuss the situation, and it was resolved to request the Wellington Rugby Union to hold an immediate inquiry as to whether any agreement was mado to vary the rules ,of Rugby. At the mooting there were present: —Messrs. G. Dixon (in tho chair), Dr. I'. J. M'Evedy, and Messrs. 15. A. Marris, G. A. Howe, G. S. Fache, E. Wylie, and A. Laurenson. In opening the discussion, Mr. Dixon said the game was not played under ltugb.v Union rules in conformity with the decision ot the New Zealand Union. Mr. Howe: That is a question, Mr. Chairman. The referee controlled the game in accordance with the rules. Dr. M'Evedy said tho game was undoubtedly played under rules which were not the rules' of Rugby, and it was quite evident that there was an agreement not to charge free-kicks. Mr. Harris:' Can you - make teams charge if they are not prepared to do so? Tho rule does not say they "must" charge; it says they "may" charge. The chairman agreed that that was so, but said that inforentially players ivero oxpected to charge if tlie.y played Rugby Union rules, which provided for a charge. Mr. Marris stated that it was admitted the two captains agreed before the match not to charge.' Dr. M'Evedy considered that no ono had power to make any agreement to play tho game with any. modifications of the rules. It was the duty of the New Zealand Union to sift the matter to the bottom and make the responsible people come to their senses and realiso that the game must be played according to the constitution. He held, that the referee was wanting in his duty if he did not see that the gamo was ■played according to the decision of tho New Zealand Union, which was communicated to the Wellington Union, of which the referee was a member. Tho members of the Wellington Union who were present were also in a measure'to blame for not having stopped the game and insisted in having carried out what was an honourable agreement on their part. , Mr. Wylie maintained that the question of responsibility should not be discussed until the position had been investigated, *md in that connection he moved: — That in regard to the Auckland v. Wellington match, played at , Wellington on Saturday last, the Wellington Rugby. Football Onion be requested to hold a full inquiry and to report to this union:— (1) Wliether there was any . agreement or arrangement: (a), 'jo vary any of the rules of Rugby, or (b) not to exercise any of the rights or options given by tlio , rules of Rugby to the opposing teams. If so, what agreement or arrangement was made, and who were tho parties thereto, and uni der what,authority, or direction I was such agreement or arrange- ' ment entered into ? (2) Whethor the captain or any member of the Wellington or Auckland, teams received any instruction: (a) Not to charge kicks at , goal ;- (b) not to..approach beyond, an imaginary line drawn through , the back of' a scrummage whilst the ball was in the scrummage; '(c) not to claim the right to put the ball into a scrummage or any similar instruction. If so, from whom was such instruction received? r (3) Whether the referee, Mr. Kitto, was notified of any arrange- . ment or agreement in regard' to any of the matters mentioned above in paragraph 2; and, if sq, which of such matters and by whom was he notified? Mr. Marris said an inquiry would not do any harm. He seconded tho resolution.' 'Mr. Dixon stated that after the match members of • the New Zealand Union, desired to meet the captains of the two teams and the membors of the Wellington Union, for the purpose of gaining information regarding any agreement which might have been arrived at. After an interval, Mr. Weir, chairman of tho Wellington Management Committee, informed tho members of the New Zealand Union that the Auckland team had left tho "round, and that tho other members of the committee objected to waiting upon the members of the New Zealand Union. The referee then stated that he had no knowledge of an agreement having been ontored into. Mr. Fache thought the referee was not concerned in the matter at all. Although : the referee might have refereed the 'game according to the rules, tho fact remained that the Wel-lington-Union had permitted'a distinct violation of a decision of the New Zealand Union's Management Com-, mittee. I During tho course of tho discussion 1 it was pointed out that there was 110 objection to the referee putting the I ball into tho scrum, but that ihe fact of this having been done on Saturday, was a fit subject for inquiry. The resolution was earned, and it I was decided that the-Wellington Union should.be asked to submit the result ot the inquiry as. soon as. possible. Mr. Fache then stated that he desired to clear himself of an imputation that he had committed a breach of tjust at a recent meeting. He wanted to emphasise that he had been guilty of no breach of confidence whatever," and that tho word "confidential was never used at the meeting. The other members of the committee agreed that what Mr. Fache said was correct.