RANFURLY SHIELD.

Evening Star, Issue 22441, 11 September 1936, Page 6

RANFURLY SHIELD.

TO TUB EDITOR. Sir, —During the past month or os we have had ample evidence in. support of the wise suggestion that the most suitable resting place for the Ranfurly Shield is in the deepest part of Cook Strait. Commencing with the criticism of oi>e of our most I’espected referees and the consequent irregular introduction of an l t outside ” referee, we had the “ 4 per cent, incident," and now we have Hawke’s Bay (or, rather, a big mouthpiece of Hawke’s Bay) mating a noise. Although your representative could not get_ any comment on Mr N, A. M'Kenzie’s outburst from the officials of the Otago Rugby Football Union, I feel that that gentleman should not be allowed to imagine that his gibe was wasted, and with your permission I will reply to a few of Mr M'Kenzie’s efforts. He is credited with saying “ As one who has studied the controlling body in Rugby in Otago,” etc., ho is not surprised that Otago will not depart from the rules governing the Ranfurly Shield. For a man who has studied Otago so well he shows a poor knowledge of the players’ positions in his articles in another journal. Ferhaps his words are too, too true, and he has been really studying the men who control the £ . d. rather than our “ centre threequarter," H. Simon. History tells us that Hawke’s Bay once lost the coveted shield because of a breach of the rules, but not a breach of the nature of which Mr M'Kenzie is disappointed that Otago will not agree to. The gentleman suggests that Otago was influenced because Hawke’s Bay defeated Australia. I will remind M'Kenzie that Wellington also deteated Hawke's Bav by 25 to 0 a few weeks, ago, although morally supported by several special train loads of supporters; also that the boasted victory over the “ Aussies ” has been equalled by other teams. Only last Wednesday North Otago held the visitors to a 16-13 margin, which suggests that Mr M'Kenzie has not a great deal to crow about. He must be grateful to the O.R.F.U. for providing him with some “ cynical amusement ” because it demanded a pound of flesh. Presumably he refers to the union who wished Otago to play the rich relation part, and was disappointed because • Otago “ demanded” the huge amount of £4 after a two-year loan of £IOO. , The closing paragraphs of Mr M'Kenzie’s utterance is really the gem. He says: _ “ It requires nothing extraordinary in the way of vision to understand that the ‘ real ’ motive behind Otago’s refusal is fear of losing the trophy that was at one time regarded as the emblem of provincial Rugby superiority,” etc. I wonder if Mr M'Kenzie is really ns funny as ho sbunds. Seeing that he has been such a close student of Otago’s Rugby business, it is unnecessary for me to dwell on the Otago team’s performances this season, but I will remind him that in six shield games Otago has scored six wins, with 113 points for and 16 against. Three tries have been registered against Otago in those games, and since their lucky win over Manav. atu Otago’s best team has amassed the total of 72 points to one penalty goal in three games. If that record does not signify up to the present that Otago is the leading provincial team of New Zealand I seek enlighten- 1 ment. Otago has her most difficult task ahead to withstand the chaljenge of the strong Wellington side which, let me again remind Mr beat Hawke’s Bay to the'tune of 25 to 0. Should Otago yet lose the shield to Hawke’s Bay surely Mr M'Kenzie should be one of the first men in New Zealand to admit V -t the method of allotting tho shield is wrong. Presuming tliat Otago is fortunate enough to defeat Wellington, that would meau,

seven wins. Then Hawke’s Bay comes along and wins the eighth game and the shield, after its inglorious display against Wellington. Surely Mr M‘Kenzie’s “ cynical amusement ” would rebound.

The whole position could he clarified if the shield were dumped in deep water. Then the team with the best record would be recognised as the premier team. To-day the silly position is that a team need only win one game to claim “ pr vincial Rugby superiority.” I do not wish to whitewash the Otago, Rugby Union officials —in fact, they are deserving of severe criticism apart from the Ranrurly Shield match altogether ; but that is beside the point, Ido object, however, to the cheap gibes of Mr M'Konzie and other correspondents who sneer at the O.R.F.U. for doing just what Hawke’s Bay did—that is, commercialising the possession of the Ranfurly Shield to the utmost. This deplorable practice will not be curable until the shield is disposed of or fresh and hard-and-fast rules drawn up. There have been a number of seasons where the shield has not been in the possession of the best province, but it must be admitted that, with the exception of the lucky win against Manawatu, Otago has a genuine claim so far. 1 am wondering just what he O.R.F.U. can do to offend Wellington and West Coast. , If it is stuck for an idea I would suggest that it pack up the shield and send it “ eolleot ” to the president —No. I am sorry—to Mr M'Kenzie, Hawke’s Bay Rugby Union. beforeßeptember 19. This should at least quieten them in the Bay. l am not sure about the other people, but at least we might see two good games played for the game’s sake and not for the prize.—l am, etc., Amateur. September 11.