PAEROA RUGBY UNION.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5453, 26 July 1929, Page 2

PAEROA RUGBY UNION.

THAMES PLAYING PAEROA MEN QUESTION FURTHER DEBATED. Following upon the publication in last Friday’s issue of the “Hauraki Plains Gazette” of correspondence between the Thames and Paeroa Rugby Unions dealing with the playing of K. G. Buchanan for Thames while a resident of Paeroa, the Paeroa Rugby Union at its meeting on Monday night took exception to the editorial footnote thereon. Lengthy discussion took place on ?. resolution proposed by the chairman, Mr J. M. Crosby, on the subject. Mr I. C. H. McDonald was of the opinion that the standing of a delegate to the Thames Valley Rugby Union should be made clear, whether he was speaking with the authority of his union or merely expressing a personal opinion or query. Mr Crosby maintained that at the meeting of the Thames Valley Union in question Messrs W. Neil, E. L. Shaw, and J. Walmsley were the Paeroa Union’s delegates, and that the chairman of the Thames Valley Union, Mi* J. W. Silcock, as a result of his visit to Wellington for the N.Z. Rugby Union’s conference, raised the matter’ of players resident in Paeroa playing for other unions This should be explained, as the Thames R igby Union would think that the Paeroa Rugby Union had raised the complaint. While agreeing to the proposed resolution in part, Mi’ J. Walmsley said he thought that a Paeroa Union delegate had brought the matter up at the meeting. Mr Shaw explained that he was the delegate responsible for mentioning Buchanan’s name. Mr Silcock had informed the meeting of the N.Z. Rugby Union’s decision in regard to the playing of a Waihi man outside his residential area, and asked if delegates had any knowledge of men in similar positions. Mr Shaw said he had answered yes, K. G. Buchanan, but had moved no resolution. Mr Silcock had said that these men playing away from their home area must be stopped. Mr McDonald reiterated that the Paeroa Rugby Union was not responsible for what its delegates said, only under authorised instructions. Mr Walmsley remarked that a delegate when speaking at a Thames Valley meeting did so as a member of the Thames Valley committee, except when acting on the instructions of the Paeroa Rugby Union. The matter* when brought up at the meeting by the delegate might have been construed as on behalf of the Paeroa Union. Finally the following portion of the chairman’s resolution was passed :— “That this union takes .exception to the editorial appearing in the ‘Hauraki Plains Gazette’ of the 23rd inst., wherein it is stated that the question of K G. Buchanan’s playing for Thames while a resident of Paeroa within the Thames Valley area was brought before the Thames Valley Rugby Football Union at a meeting of that body by a delegate of the Paeroa Rugby Union, and the same had been brought before the Auckland Rugby Union. The editorial above-mention-ed is misleading and contrary to fact, through no advice having been tendered in this respect to the delegates representing this union on the Thames Valley Rugby Union.” ■ [The fact remains, however, that the question was brought up at the Thames Valley Union meeting by a delegate of the Paeroa Union, whatever In’s capacity at that meeting was, as is admitted in the foregoing. And, furthermore, the same delegate of the Paeroa Rugby Union had broached the same question, and thereby started the discussion, at the. annual meeting of the Thames Valley Union on April 27, three weeks before the Thames Valley delegates attended the N.Z. Rugby Union conference at Wellington.—Ed.] Another One. Having dealt with the K. G. Buchanan letter in one manner, the management committee of the Paeroa Rugby Union adopted, quite another method of dealing with exactly the same sort" of letter about T. Vangioni—this time the correct way. The Thames Rugby Union addressed the following letter io the Paeroa Rugby Union :— “With reference to the residential qualifications of T. T. Vangioni I have to advise you that in view of the publicity that will be given to the affair if Vangioni is ruled eligible, and the possibility of appeal by the Thames Valley Rugby Union, and the fact that the bank officials have intimated their disapproval of a member of their staff being the centre of public controversy, my union has advised him to apply for permission to play in Thames, without retracting any of his previous claim to a right to play here. “The Physical Training Club has made similar representations to those made by the College Old Boys Club, and, as previously stated, the competition here lias reached a most interesting stage, the championship points being College Old Boys 6, Physical Training and City 4 each, with three matches each to play. “The Physical Training team has 19 active players, and of these three are on the injured list and likely to be for some time, two have recently left Thames for other districts, while Vangioni has not been able to play in the last two matches (which, incidentally, this club lost). The club has a good junior team affiliated, but most of the players affected are backs, and as yet the juniors are rather on the light side to take up senior football too often. One more active player will make a big difference, and under present circumstances, if the club cannot raise a full team it practically means that the team will have to take the field short or withdraw, giving an unfair advantage to the other two teams. “I might here mention that the Physical Training Club recently withdrew from the competition on account

of insufficiency of football, b it later adjusted its difference with the union; but nevertheless the club is carrying on Under greater difficulties than the other clubs, for recently it had four players leave the field through injuries. “The union is therefore passing on the club’s representations for your earnest consideration, and I understand that Vangioni is desirous of attending your meeting to state his case.” Upon the reading of the above Mr Walmsley commented that the Thames Union should have addressed the letter to the Thames Valley Union through the Auckland Union. The Thames Union was apparently ignoring Auckland altogether. It must know that it was a matter for the Auckland and Thames Valley Unions. He could not understand why the Thames Union should adopt this method. Mx* Crosby thought that the Paeroa Union’s parent body should be considered. It was decided to instruct the secretary to inform the Thames Union that the matter was not one for the Paeroa Rugby Union to deal with, and that the Thames Union should refer it through the Auckland Union to the Thames Valley Union. It was further decided that the secretary should write to the Thames Union and state that at no time had the Paeroa Union taken any active steps in the reporting of Vangioni playing out of its area. T. Vangioni was then called to hear the decision of the committee. He explained that he wished to play for the Old Boys team of his college some eight weeks hence, and would like to have a couple of games at Thames to keep in training. The chairman in answer said that while there was not the slightest obiection to him playing for his old school, the ruling on the other matter had already been made. Vagioni considered the action of; preventing him from playing for Thames was not sporting. Thames, had allowed Paeroa three players within the former’s boundary, yet Paeroa would not let him play for Thames. It was tantamount to open warfare, between the Thames and Thames Valley unions.