THE CORNWELL CUP.

Evening Star, Issue 19784, 7 February 1928, Page 4

THE CORNWELL CUP.

TO THE EDITOK. Sir,—lt would be as tedious as it is unnecessary to follow Mr Oscar Holier, chairman of the Cornwell Cup Contest Sailing Committee, over the very wide field covered in his letter. The facts are so simple that the issue cannot he obscured, though Mr Mollor has apparently done his utmost in that direction.

The facts arc plain: A foul occurred in the fifth race" of the Cornwell Cup scries—an ordinary collision, in which Canterbury transgressed the port-star-board rule and Auckland was compelled to retire. Only Canterbury and Auckland were concerned in the collision, Otago being in (he lead, and the other competing boats finished the race. Otago won; Tauranga, Mamikau, Itawkc’s-Bay, and Wellington following in that order, in no other yacht race could there have been any doubt about the decision. Scores of such collisions have taken place, and the race is invariably decided on the result, just as in ail other contests between man or boast. By some occult process of reasoning Mr Moller attempts to justify flic rcsailing of the race on tho ground ihat Auckland had a chance of winning. “Although the Auckland boat was second at the time, her position was immaterial provided she had a reasonable chance of winning,” says Mr Moller. Otago had a lead of 53sec at the time, and in the previous four races Otago had passed the finishing line first in three of them, being disqualified in one of those throe. Auckland had finished second, sixth, fourth, and second in those four races. Mr Holler’s reasoning is equally loose when he attempts to justify the exclusion of all other provinces except Otago and Auckland from tho resailed fifth.race. Bo contends that, because Otago beat the other boats, thcrofoio in the resailed race both Auckland and Otago must certainly defeat the oilier boats. Such an opinion is opposed to all experience in yacht racing. The resailed race was hold on anot.ier day under quite divtcrent conditions, and yet Sir Molh •, out of tho waulEi of ins yachting experience, declare* that tho issue is quite beyond doubt—Omt cither Auckland or Otago must have won the resailed race if the other provinces had been allowed to compete. If Mr Mollor is not adding anything of sound value to yacht racing lore he is certainly investing it with an element of rash prophecy and unconscious humor.

in plain words, the Sailing Committee wrongfully deprived Otago, according to yachting ruler, and practice (to say nothing of common sense or common fairness), of a race which, she fairly won. an! as that race was her third straight and clean win in the scries the Sailing Committee thereby depi ived Otago of the honor of winning the Cornwell Cup. And then the Sailing Committee, by its decision to confine the resailed race to two provinces, deprived all the other competing provinces of an equal chance to win the fifth race of the series. These two decisions constitute the most remarkable conclusion of a sailing committee in British yachting history. Let me say to Mr Moller that lie cannot cite two parallel decisions to support the unprecedented action of the Sailing Commit!cc. The Otago Yacht and Motor Boat Association has asked the Takapuna. Boating Club to agree to stale a joint caso for the ruling of Y.R.A., the supreme authority on British yacht racing. It expects the club to agree, that the case shall ho fairly staled and free from all extraneous matter, though if one may judge the possibilities from Mr Moller’s letter that may be rather difficult of accomplishment.—l am, etc., J. T. Pauu. February 0.