Football.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 293, 20 June 1929, Page 1

Football.

The Peace Cup.

ORDER OF CHALLENGES. A Question of Procedure. First Match Against, Thames. What has created somewhat of a stir in football circles in South Auckland is the order of receipt of s all lges for the Peace Cup, at present held by Morrinsville. The procedure adopted in the past has been for the union holding the trophy to accept the challenges .in the order of receipt.* Opinion is current in other nnions that Morrinsville intends to depart from this custom. A serious view was taken of the matter by the Morrinsville Union in a lengthy discussion at a meeting on. Saturday evening, when it was decided to accept the challenge of Thames first.

The discussion arose through a letter from the Thames union protesting against its challenge for the Peace Cup not being taken first. The president (Mr. W. Hogg) said the secretary of the Thames union had been in touch with him by telephone, and, on asking whether Thames was to be played first was told that the fixtures had not yet heen arranged. The speaker had added that in his opinion the Morrinsville union had the right to say who had the first challenge. The Thames secretary had differed with this viewpoint.

The secretary (Mr. C. Mclntyre) said that the challenge from Thames had been received on September 12.

Hr. Chapman said this was a serious matter. He had seen a circular, * sent out by the Thames union to all challenging unions, setting forth that the president of the Morrinsville union had stated that the Morrinsyille union was going to pick and choose as to which team was to be played first. It was unfortunate that any union should take note of what •was not eonfirAied in writing bv the Morrinsville union. Apparently a personal conversation had been taken seriously. The matter was affecting the Morrinsville union from an attitude of sportsmanship. The speaker had told, one union that when the matter came before the Morrinsville union it would be dealt with according to the rules. He moved that the union play the first challengers for the Peace Cup, and after that challengers «n the order received. This was an unwritten law, and he failed to see why it should be departed from. If any alteration was to be made it should be made by a conference of delegates.

Mr. Colson asked whether a challenge received last year was in order.

Mr. McDavitt took exception to a challenge being put in immediately after the cup was lost. Mr. Campbell endorsed these remarks. In order that the union’s bona fides might be established a case should be submitted to the Auckland Union whether a challenge put in last season should take precedent over challenges submitted after the annual meetings of other clubs. If it was not constitutional to accept such a challenge and the Morziinsville union did accept, other challenging unions would have just cause to complain. He would move an amendment on these lines. The other unions should be circularised, stating the Morrinsville union’s attitude.

The secretary said both Hamilton and Thames had challenged before the new season opened. Mr. D. Pirrit agreed with the remarks of Mr. Campbell. Mr. Campbell read a rule to the effect that challenging unions must have a challenge in before March 31 in each year. He submitted that by in each year was meant January 1. I Mr. Ford: At that rate Thames

I and Hamilton have not yet challeng- ) e<^" l Mr. Pirrit in seconding the amend- | ment suggested that the other unions i should be circularised after the | Auckland union’s ruling was reeeiv- ; ed. j Mr. Chapman said it was unfortunate that this question should have cropped up. If any alteration in the procedure was desired it should be made by a union not holding the cup. Two years> ago Morrinsville was looked upon as a most popular union. Now»it was slipping back. It was looked upon as dodging issues. There had been trouble with the Peace Cup dates last year. Mr. Campbell: What trouble ? Mr. Chapman said the dates had been put forward a week. A member pointed out that this had been done on a previous occasion by the Hamilton union without any undue notice being taken. 1 Mr. Chapman was of the opinion that under the circumstances it |

would be advisable to follow the procedure of other unions holding the cup in the past. Mr. Mclntyre considered that the union should carry on with the challenges in the order they had been received. In the event of Morrinsville losing the cup the question raised by Mr. Chapman could be considered, but while Morrinsville held the trophy it should adhere to past policy. If Thames and Hamilton were beaten this would be no detriment to Morrinsville, while if either of these unions lifted the trophy'there might be grounds for other clubs protesting. Mr. Sing considered it would do more harm than good not to accept the challenges in the order received. Mr. McDavitt considered no harm would be done by seeking the opinion of the Auckland union on the point. The president, in answer to Mr. Chapman’s remark, said he considered Morrinsville had done nothing to earn unpopularity. A member: We are unpopular because we hold the cup. Mr. Ford supported the amendment. At this stage the amendment was put to the meeting, and was lost jpy. one vote, the motion then being carried without opposition. Mr. Campbell said that while bowing to the opinion of the majority, he was still of the opinion that the circular sent out by Thames should, not go unanswered. The position in which the Morrinsville union found itself should be explained. He moved that the president, secretary, Messrs. McDavitt and Chapman draft a circular letter setting forth I the views of the Morrinsville union. I Mr. Pirrit: We should let Thames know that the personal view of any member of the union is not the opinion of the union. The motion was carried. A committee, consisting of the president, secretary, and Messrs. Chapman, Pirrit and McDavitt was set up to arrange dates of Peace Cup fixtures. .