THE RANFURLY SHIELD

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22986, 15 September 1936, Page 4

THE RANFURLY SHIELD

HAWKE’S BAY'S CHALLENGE MATCH ABANDONED THIS YEAR The intimation from the Hawke's Bay Rugby Union that it had decided to accept the Otago Union’s decision in regard to the "special” challenge for the Ranfurly Shield was received without one word of comment by the Management Committee of the local union at its meeting last night. The secretary of the northern body acknowledged the receipt of the Otago Union's telegram which expressed regret at the holders’ inability to accept Hawke’s Bay’s challenge on September 30 “ owing to the 40-hour week preventing a number of players from obtaining the necessary leave to play on a Wednesday.” The letter was merely “ received.” and so the controversy has ended with one challenge match removed from Otago’s lengthy list of fixtures for the season. .BAY UNION’S MEETINGS STRONG VIEWS EXPRESSED Following the reading of Otago’s telegram at the last meeting of the Hawke’s Bay Union a lengthy discus-: sion took place before it was finally decided to accept without protest the holders’ decision that the challenge be declined this season. Dated September 4, the following letter was also, received from the secretary of the New Zealand Rugby Union: —“ My- committee has noted. your challenge to the Otago Rugby Union to play for the Ranfurly Shield on September 30. In your letter you use the term ‘ special challenge/ but as this is;, a match in the ordinary course of your tour, and so arranged at the annual general meeting, it cam not be treated as a special challenge match.” A motion by Mr W. L. Dunn, that the matter be dealt with in committee. lapsed for want of a seconder. “This matter has already received sufficient publicity,” said Mr Dunn, in giving his reason for the motion. “ We were not touring this year, and we waited until well down in the list, with the result that when we applied for a shield match all the Saturdays had gone,” Mr Nome said. "We distinctly asked Otago if they would like a challenge from Hawke's Bay, and they replied that they would. We accepted a Wednesday date merely to nreserve our right of challenge, and we pointed out at the time that there might be an alteration. “We never confirmed September 23 as the date for the match, and we ult’mately asked that the date be altered to September 30. Otago now say that September 30 is after the last Saturdav in September, and, according to the Ranfurly Shield rules, they are unable to play the match. They are perfectly within their rights.” Mr B. Tweedie: That is not die reason they give for refusing Hawke’s Bay’s challenge. . . Mr Nome: No; they say that it is not possible to obtain leave for players. “I have yet to learn that Hawkes Bay did that,” Mr Nome went on, “ The Otago people, good business people that they are, will surely let players off fpr a Ranfurly Shield match. Otago is the One union in New Zealand that told us that we were commercialising the shield when we had it,” he said. “It was also stated that the shield should be dropped in Cook Strait. Members will recall that. You can’t tell me that there is not something else in this refusal.” Mr Nome added that he thought Hawke’s Bay could not do otherwise than accept the decision in regard to the match. “But I don’t like the inference made by Otago in previous years and their attitude now,” he continued. “ While we were a minor union we were always friendly with Otago but when we attained major status they would not recognise us as such. They haveKti’eafed us, iri that ffianner since. We have never* adopted his attitude ourselves, arid we did pot expect it from Otago, but that has been their attitude towards this union for some years past. No matter wnat Hawke’s Bay has brought up at New Zealand Union meetings, it has never had the support of Otago.” “ I am/ both disappointed and surprised at .Otago’s' attitude,”- said Mr Tweedie." “The only grounds I can ice for the decision is that Otago have played too many matches, but they were aware of the position when th) fixtures were made, and they accepted our match. For them to forward the excuse now that their players cannot obtain leave is a bad look-out for next year, when they -go on a fortnight’s tour. However, I don’t see that we can do anything in the matter.” . Mr Nome: No, we must accept the decision. I don’t think wjg should offer any objection. It is going to put us in an unfortunate position if we protest at all. Mr A. D. Lynch: We must look upan it in a friendly way, and not push for a fixture which would be a “ grudge ” match. Mr Nome: I can only assume that Otago has learned the value of holding the shield,, the same as we and other unions did. A motion was carried accepting the Otago Union’s decision. The New Zealand Rugby Union, on the other hand, is to be informed that it was in error in stating that Hawke’s Bay’s match with Otago was not a special one. SUPPORT FOR OTAGO The Christchurch Star-Sun gives its views as follows: “ Despite the arguments and insinuations of Hawke’s Bay officials, the Otago Rugby Union has the fidl support of the New Zealand Union and most provincial unions in limiting the number of “special” mid-week Ranfurly Shield matches. These extra fixtures too often savour of rank pothunting, and tend to damage the game as an amateur code. It is Hawke’s Bay’s turn to tour south next season. . If they curb their impatience they will be welcome then —not as pot-hunters, but as sportsmen.”