Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

“FOR’ARD HAND" IN REPLY

“ For’ard Hand” replies: Why dees not Mr Mollor get down to the points in dispute, instead of side-stepping? The Cornwell Cup Contest Sailing Committee made a gross blunder in deciding to rcsail, and its president is now endeavoring to shuffle the cards to try a bluff. The Cornwell Cup Sailing Committee made a gross blunder in deciding to resail, and its president is now endeavoring to shuffle the cards to try a bluff. There has been no ranting criticism by Mr Paul or members of tic Oiago Yacht and Motor Beat Association Their comments have been based on sound opinions; as much could not bo said for the Contest Committee’s decisions. Y.R.A. rules are not difficult to interpret, and they cover the Cornwell Cup, too. The Y.R.A. rules have remained unaltered for over 54 years, yet the president of the committee makes the claim, a ridiculous one, that the incidents which occurred at Auckland were not covered by the rules. The major note of Mr Moller’s reply is the quoting of the rule in the contest conditions: “ Boats not to he interfered with.” When racing, the boats were under the rules of the Y.R.A., and that particular condition to cover the boats, was inserted obviously for the purpose of preventing the removal of floorboards and other gear from the boats by crews. The conference was not unanimous, although Mr Moller in an official message to Dunedin, stated that the decision was agreed to by all delegates. Mr Lidgard opposed the proposal, and, in Dunedin, that gentleman is held in the highest respect as a yachting authority. The protests of the Canterbury yachtsmen and quite a number of Aucklanders, including “ Speedwell,” the well-known yachting writer of the Auckland ‘ Star,’ show that Otago is not alone in its clamor against the surprising decisions. So, according to Mr Moller, Otago has_ no course of redress! A pretty position, indeed.' The Otago Association made a very fair proposal when it decided that both the Takapuna Club and the local association prepare a case for submission to the Y r .E.A. (England), yet Mr Moller does not seem at all keen. The decision, Mr Moller says, is final, but it is far from that. Otago intends to press the matter, and Mr Moller would do well to give every assistance to clear up the disputed points; as yet, he has shown no grounds for defending the action of himself and the committee. Again, Mr Moller endeavors to belittle his opponent, but he can make no direct charges. He claims that the Contest Committee was _ composed of expert yachtsmen, yet in giving the names he mentions that the first six are practical yachtsmen; and he excludes himself and the Otago delegate. “For’ard Hand ” is no armchair critic. He learned his yachting in a good school,; Mr Moller refers readers to

this writer’s notes to size up his authority. Once again, “ For’ard Hand ” challenges Mr Moller to cite cases where he has made gross mistakes. Mr Mollor cannot do that. _ Plainly, he has been annoyed over this writer’s past comments on the Cornwell Cup contests. “For’ard Hand” has not mixed his attack on tiic contests. The past contests were stated to be fiascos, and “For’ard Hand” also declared that the heats competing were far from one-design. It was fair comment, supported by every yachtsman, save Mr Moller and a few of the Takapuna enthusiasts, who saw the contests at Dunedin and Lyttelton. Has the past contest been other than a racing fiasco? No! Socially it was a huge success, but the contest was not supposed to be a bun fight or a picnic gathering. Mr Moller is apparently annoyed that Mr Bewley’s judgment was questioned. The Otago delegate has since admitted his ignorance of yachting practice and racing, and the opinions of the committee president which he echoed were shattered by ell members of the Otago Association, not only by Mr Paul and this critic. Summed up, Mr Moller’s reply is as weak as his previous defences of the committee’s actions. As a yachting, export, Mr Moller stands uniionored in Otago.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD19280204.2.18

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

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

Word count
Tapeke kupu
688

“FOR’ARD HAND" IN REPLY Evening Star, Issue 19782, 4 February 1928, Page 3

“FOR’ARD HAND" IN REPLY Evening Star, Issue 19782, 4 February 1928, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert