THE CORNWELL CUP

Evening Star, Issue 19782, 4 February 1928, Page 3

THE CORNWELL CUP

TO TUE EDITOU. Sir, —My attention has been drawn to the articles appearing in the 1 Evening Star ’ on the 2d ult.; and also to the report of the meeting ot the Otago Yacht and Motor Boat Association on the 28th. Otago is certainly fortunate that Mr Paul was not the delegate to the Cornwell Cup contest, or the public would have heard ol an amazing display of “ the true sporting spirit,” as the phrase is interpreted hy the Hon. J. T. Caul. Perhaps if thin gentleman had been the manager of the Otago cricket team that team would have been ordered to leave the field and to return home. owing to dissatisfaction with a decision by an umpire. In the words oi the * livening Star’ “Really, Mr Paul!” However, both Mr Bewley and the Otago crew acted in a manner that did thorn great credit. There is no doubt that both were keenly disappointed, yet both carried on in accordance with the best of all sporting traditions. It must, however, be particularly galling to Mr Bowley to hoar the ranting criticism by the Hon. J. T P.aul and his little coterie, including “ For’ard Hand,” and to have t, submit to a cross-examination tor the avowed purpose of showing that he, Mr Bewley, “had been a party to a flagrant flouting of the rules of yachting and fair play,” to perpetrate “ a robbery.” f cannot hope to show Mr laid and his little coterie that the manner in which the Cornwell Cup Contest Committee has been criticised shows an absence of good taste, but I hope to show him that his remarks are based on false premises, and that his logic is defective. I pity him for the first, 1 supply the true facts to correct the second, and I furnish the true conclusion to help him with the third. The facts are that Auckland, having been fouled by Canterbury, was compelled to retire through defective rigging at a time when she had a reasonable chance of winning. This finding was the unanimous decision ot the Contest Committee, and as tar as I am aware, has not been questioned, although several attempts have been made to show that Auckland could have carried on, did carry on, and had no chance of winning. On the question of Auckland s chance of winning the record of the race shows that she was 36sec behind Otago at the Nortlicote mark, where the lision occurred. If anyone doubts that she had a reasonable chance of winning he should refer to the results of all races. Although the Auckland boau was second at the time her , position was immaterial provided she had’ a reasonable chance of winning. When considering this matter it should he remembered that the Cornwell Cup is unique in that in that it is a contest between crews, not boats, aiid it is therefore only natural that certain special rules would be necessary. Moreover, in all special contests there are special rules. The racing rules ot the contest therefore provide'ine contest shall be sailed under .the Y.R.A. rules, with such modifications as the committee in each case shall decide. Failing any decision of the committee to the contrary the-follow-ing modifications to the Y.R.A. rules shall apply;—(l) Not applicable; (2) not applicable; (3) boat not to be interfered with, and no person to leave or join a boat during the race; (4 to 9) not applicable. Now, this rule was inserted as- an addition to the Y.R.A. rules after mature consideration of the latter, yet Mr Paul, in his great wisdom, dismisses the rule from consideration by saying that it is meaningless and absurd. It is obvious that the rule would not have been inserted if the Y.R.A. rules covered the point, and

as the Y.R.A. rules provide for disqualification of any offending boat (rule 35), some other purpose was intended, especially as interference might be brought about by boats which are not competitors. In the opinion of the committee, therefore, the rule was meant to cover that very wide class of interference which, though not necessarily a foul, would result in .any crew, through no fault, of their own, being deprived of all chances of winning 'through the ac 1 of another. Any rule to cover such a wide matter must of necessity be general in its terms. That there is a wide range of matters not specifically covered by the’Y.R.A, rules is clear from' rule l, which states so explicitly. The committee therefore decided that it has power to adjudicate on the incident in a fuller "mannor than mere disqualification of the offending boat, as disqualification followed as a matter of course. The committee’s decision then amounted to this —namely, that, as Otago, by superior speed and skill, had beaten all the other crews in this race except Auckland, which was deprived of all chance of winning by the foul, and since the object was to find the two best boys, the Otago crew should show that they could beat tbo Auckland crew before being considered the champions. Mr Paul states that a resail under Rule 40 is between all the competitors except the boat causing the accident, but he shmikl read the rule before venturing his opinion, as the rule implicitly says; “ Thev shall order the race to bo resailed, if possible, between such yacht or yachts I (viz. —the yacht or yachts injuring its or their chance of winning by render-j ing assistance to those in peril), and the winner of such prize, otherwise the race shall bo void and the entrance fees returned.” By analogy from this rule it would therefore have been wrong to permit any boat not affected by the incident to take part in the re-1 sail. Furthermore, if all boats bad been permitted to resail, Otago would indeed have been penalised, whereas as it was she was given credit tor having beaten all the other boats except Auckland. Furthermore, I would like to say that the personnel of the Contest Committee was:—Messrs Lidgard (representing Hawke’s Bay), Duncan (Wellington), Collins (Canterbury), • Carter (Tauranga), Wilson (Manukau), Pickmere (Whangarci), Bewley (Otago), Moller (Auckland). The first six gentlemen are practical yachtsmen at the present time, and all have held administrative positions for years in the sport of yachting. To these men the intention of the rule was clear,' and they acted accordingly. “For’ard Hand” suggests that the northerners intended to win by every means, and by making this suggestion he has not only abandoned all pretence of good taste, but has overlooked that the committee was an impartial body comprising a representative from each province. With regard to the suggestion of taking the matter to the Y.R.A.,'the conference, composed of one delegate from every competing port, after careful consideration of all the facts and rules, has made what it considers a just decision. The conference is disbanded and the decision is therefore , final. However, as the matter is of such public interest and may crop up in the future, no doubt the i Takapuna Boating Club would assist in obtaining a ruling for the guidance of future conferences, who doubtless would take notice of any ruling given. . We have read so many amazing statements, many of them not founded on fact, that I am constrained to ask; AVho are these gentlemen ’ who hold themselves so much to the fore as “ authorities,” able to criticise so completely a committee of expert yachtsmen (not'armchair critics) who have been and , are fostering this contest ? What, I'ask, .has “For’ard Hand” .dene in the past ?, Let those. interested.

look up liis yachting; notes previous to the cup races, and they will be able to size up this so-called authority. As for Mr Paul, he certainly is chairman of the Otago Yacht and Motor Boat Association,, but does his record in the sport of yachting allow of Ins sweeping statements regarding a decision arrived at by experts in the game? Otago sent a worthy delegate to look after her interests, but wc find his judgment is passed over as worthless. Take away the criticisms of Mr Paul and “For’ard Hand,” and what is left? 1 say by the rules available, by the evidence and knowledge of what the Cornwell Cup stands for, the decision was correct in every way.—l am, etc., 0, Moller, Chairman Cornwell Contest Sailing Committee.