“THE ACID TEST”

Taranaki Daily News, 26 March 1921, Page 8

“THE ACID TEST”

RUGBY RELATIONSHIP. BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND AND ENGLAND. The move made by the New Zealand Rugby Union in the direction of amending the laws of Rugby, and the subsequent deliberations by that body and affiliated unions, have excited much comment in various English journals. • It is evident that a mistaken impression of New Zealand’s desire was created in the Old Country, but by this time.mail advices conveying a' mote accurate idea of the position should have reached England. These will no doubt undermine the suggestion that New Zealand is anxious to break away from the controlling body. The strength of this country, however, entitles R to representation on the principal boat’d or control, and the fact that the English Union has given its approval of this request seems to set aside any reason for Lseces-sion. Extracts from sevt<ra’.< articles in English papers will be of interest to Rugby enthusiasts : “What particular form of casuistry fe actuating the members of thg New land Rugby Union at the present time?” whites “W. L. In The Athletic News. “Oil the one hand fealty to the parent body, the Rugby Union of England, Is sworn. It is declared that in the Dominion only the rules approved by the latter body are practised, while as a fact in Auckland football has been and, maybe, is still practised according to a oods to suit the tasfps of payers, their eontrollecs, and, above a|l things, their admirers. Elsewhere Uomi-land laws may be honoured, and bena.pse ef this fact it may be argued in a general sense that in New Zealand rules approved by the Rugby Unio- are followS& AM !*• <»«» «»*

regulations at might etill be possible speciously to say that in New Zealand football, as laid down by the parent body, was followed. That would be sophistry, but what would that matter to people who knew full well that the laws had been altered in Auckland?

. . . If New Zealand is going to be loyal in every respect good and well; if Auckland in sheer dread of League opposition is going to suit itself in the matter of code then fellowship cannot be sustained with them.” The writer deals ht-length with cablegrams that have created “‘ideas of newspaper inaccuracies,” and makes an “important contrast.” “The one difference between the North of England and the North of New Zealand is that here the players count : there the onlookers matter.” The article concludes with “two blunt queries : “What would the M.C.C. say were Australia and New Zealand to come along and demand- seats on its committee with full voting powers? What would the International Board of Association Football say did Overseas Dominions seek direct representation thereupon? I leave my readers to formulate their own replies to the questions. Sloppy sentimentalism and weak-kneed misplaced” Imperialism may sound nice, but neither will stand the acid test of practical reasonong in formulating reasonable sport. We all welcome the support New Zealand has given to the game, but in the meantime she is an integrant part of a great body, and as such must be subject to the laws of the latter Union. If all New Zealand Rugby Union chibs are playing according to these laws I rejoice. But are they ?”

“Let it be hoped that the threatened cloud, which would mean the breaking away of the New Zealand Rugby Union from the Rugby Football Union, will pass away,” says the Referee. “If it should so happen that the Australians do ‘carry on’ in defiance of the parent body, the friendly relations which have existed must cease. A quarter of a century ago there was the first breaking away, and the Rugby Union stood their ground nobly. They will do so again. Will not the New Zealand Army team which carried off the King’s Cup, and also beat France at Twickenham and Paris, have no weight with their countrymen? Considering the status of the South African and French Rugby Unions the desirability of representation of those bodies on the Rugby International Board might be discussed, and no doubt had there been representation of New Zealand and Australia, perhaps there would have been a better understanding. Still, even did such a constitution obtain, there would still be the difficulty of coping with the individual players who desire to pay for their football. Let us hope that the breach will be prevented, and that at least an unpleasant happening will not be associated with this jubilee of the Rugby Football Union. “It would not be unpleasant to be rid of an affiliated body with interests opposed to the tenets and traditions of Rugby Union football, but it would be most pleasant to know that the Rugby Union flag could fetill wave over some pavilions in Australasia. The Rugby Football Uunion will not countenance any deviation from the pute amateurism of jthe game.”“Whether the action of the New Zealand Union means a step in the direetion of Northern Union football is not apparent at the moment,” says the Observer, “but obviously a break away from some of the laws of the International Board makes the way easier for a further and more complete breach. So far the Northern Union code has not in New Zealand the popularity it commands in Australia, but, should that come about, the future may bring with it interchange of visits between Northern Union teams of this country, the Commonwealth, and the Dominion. One may regret such a development, but if the amateur''spirit in which Rugby is played in this country does not appeal to those on the other side of the world, the severance in sport is inevitable. After all, the question is, as always, ‘shall the physical advantage of those taking part in the game be the first and moat important consideration or shall fpofchaff be regarded primarily as a public entertainment and the players as performers ?”