FOOTBALL ETHICS. RUGBY UNION'S CASE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXI, Issue 95, 24 April 1911, Page 10

FOOTBALL ETHICS. RUGBY UNION'S CASE.

TO THE EDITOE. Sir, — A final word in reference to your reply to my letter which appeared in your issue of last Saturday. lam sorry that that letter was so " profuse,*' but seeing that you have had, so far, about three columns to my one, the profuseneES seems to be on your side. lam likewise sorry that my letter came after such a "leisurely interval" (like this one), but I would remind you, Mr. Editor, that I am not a. journalist. You originally as^edted two things — (1) That, the W.K.O. had not held a proper enquiry in the case of ths broken jaw. (2) That the fixtures were re-arranged I last year to the detriment of the weaker clubs. _With regard to (1), I repeat that the N.Z.U., with all the evidence, before it, decided that the W.R.U. had held a proper enquiry. You, on no evidence at all, assert that it did not. I ask again, which is in the better position to judge? You say that the N.Z.U. merely had " all the 'evidence which the W.II.TJ. submitted." Exactly, and this evidence showed, in xhc> opinion ot the N.Z.U. that the W..R.Q. had held a proper enj quiry. I did tell Mr. Wiren that only the evidence of players was being taken, and so it was — at that rfage of the enquiry—and .I. I did.not kno\v then that other evidence would eventually be a'ctmittcri. You ask, "Why was the evidence of the line umpires not taken?" I answer that their evidence was taken. Please don't make any more rash statements of this kind, Mr. Editor, or I shall get tired of bowling you out. You ask further, "Why did not the union plainly publish its intention to admit outside evidence?'' So .it did— to the only persons to whom it should have been published, namely, the players charged. You infer that Calcinai was not given as fair a chance to defend himself as the other accused. This is absolutely incorrect. Each of the three players charged was informed by letter that he was at liberty to call any evidence at his disposal. No " counsel " appeared for Calcinai because he did not ask that anyone should represent him. Had he done s& his request would certainly have been granted. With regard to (2) :— I challenged you to -prove your assertion. You referred xne to your Sports Edition of 30th April last. In that article you compared two sets of fixtures, and showed that Southern met St. James instead of Old Boys. Then you went on to cay that if the matches had bten played as they should have been, Southern would have met in their first four matches Old Boys, Oriental, Petone", and Poneke. As actually played, they met St. - James, Oriental, Victoria College, and Hutt. That looks like rearranging fixtures "to the detriment of the weaker clubs," doesn't it? Your reply to my challenge does not look too convincing. You made, two distinct assertions, and you have failed t& prove either, and, side-step the iesue as you will, even you, Mr. Editor, cannot prove what is not true. — I- am, etc., W. PERRY, Hon. Treasurer W.K.F.U. 21st April. THE POST'S REPL¥. Possibly Mr. Perry would do the Rugby Union a much greater service by deferring Iris replies for a much longer period than a week. Wo cannot imagine tha+ the Management Committee can believe that Mr. Perry lias 'secured any backing of public opinion in his defence., The Post certainly welcomes any bowling that Mr. Perry :an offer, even if it purports to be of a terrible '■googlie" character. The Post gladly gives Mr. Perry any comfort that he can derive from th 3 query of last week, " Why was the evidencf of the line umpires not taken?" We slightly misunderstood our informant in this matter ; the word -"seriously"' should have been printed after "taken." By delaying the resumption of the enquiry for a -month the committee incidentally debarred one member, Mr. Wilson, from being present at the investigation, states Mr. Wiren. At the close of the six months which elapsed from the date of the broken jaw (6th August), the public received no great illumination from the committee about that evidence which, Mr. Perry claims, was "proper enquiry." If this enquiry was co very " proper " it will surely be to the union's advantage to hand out reasonable- digests of the evidence and disclose the final voting of the i committee. This will be an interesting basis frc further bowling by Mr. Perry. Our concern aH along has not been with charges against Calcinai. We understand that it was Calcinai who had his jaw broken; a"nd we hope it 'is not suggested that he was the breaker of his own jaw. Mr. Perry infers that the union, after a wrong, impression had been given about the evidence that was to be admissible, did its duty by informing "the three players charged," including Calcinai, that they were at liberty to call any evidence at their disposal. Calcinai was apparently on his ] defence (not for breaking his own jaw, but some incidental allegation, we presume). Mr. Perry is surely trying to fet away Irom that very important roken jaw. The union's duty was to try to discover the breaker of the jaw. Does Mr. Perry suggest that Calcinai should have been in the role of prosecutor and that the invidious onus of calling witnesses was on him? It was the union's mystery to clear, and it was the union's duty to take all proper precautions to secure all available important evidence. The union has confessed, through Sir. Perry's second disingenuous letter, that it failed in "that duty. Thus the mysteiy..was_as.iriuch a juyst-exy (to, the *ujrion) - on- 6th"- February as it ivasoir 6th ■ August." -" * ' - --•• - , • By another little stratagem, as transparent as those which The Post exposed | last week, Mr.' Perry again tries to de- I lude'the public into a belief that the union did not. do the " gate trick" .last year in alterrm^the- balloted^ fixtures. We shall quote a little more fairly and completely than Mr. Perry. No. 1 round, as originally drawn, comprised the following fixtures: — Hutt v. Wellington, Victoria College v. Melrose, Old Boys v. Southern, Oriental v. St. James, Petone v, Poneke, Athletic a bye. Instead of playing No. 1 first as it should have done, the union began with No. 5 round, thus:— Hutt v. Old Boys, Athletic v. Oriental,- -Pstone v. Wellington, Poneke v. Victoria Colege, St. James v. Southern, Melrose a bye. The spectacle of Mr. Perry side-stepping this issue should be interesting to all footballers who know the difference between No. 1 and No. 5.