FOOTBALL.

Taranaki Daily News, 19 May 1922, Page 5

FOOTBALL.

THE RIVAL CODES. MAORIS' VISIT TO AUSTBAUA. By Telegraph.—Presa Assn<Jopyriflrt. Received May 18, 11.45 p.m. Sydney, May 18. The Sun newspaper, under the heading "A’ Maori War", states: ‘‘A bitter fight, unseemly and altogether obnoxious to decent people, is proceeding In New Zealand over the proposed visit of a team of Maoris to Sydney to play a series of Rugby League matches.” The paper continues: “The league in New Zealand Is not so strong a body as here, but it is progressing. The union, on the other hand, has solid support and a more solid banking account, but it resents the intrusion of the thirteen-a-side code. The result is that a bitter war is being waged between the two bodies. If it were kept in New Zealand it would not matter, but it is spreading here.” After referring to a cable received in Sydney, giving Mr. Farata’s report. to the New Zealand Rugby Union, in which he state* that the league code la not meeting with much success in the main North Island district*, the paper states: “The bitterness with whieh tlie fight is being waged is obvious from th* message, but Sydney is not perturbed. Th* New South Wales league secretary states *that he has information that more Maoris than are wanted are desirous to make the trip. Be this as it may, this unseemly quarrel be-i tweefi the two codes in New Zealand is having a bad effect on the game. Fortunately th* same bitterness has not been displayed here.”— Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn.

TARANAKI RUGBY UNKh MEETING OF MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, THE ATKINS PROTEST. A meeting of the management committed of the Taranaki Rugby Union was held at Hawera last nigLt. Present: Messrs. Jas# McLeod (chairman), A. F. Neilson, F. Mason, W. H. Moyes, L. G. Beamish, R. F. ness, W. A. Guy, Jas. Garcia, and <L E« .Ta go (hon. secretary). » Okaiawa entered a protest against Hawvr4 being awarded the match played on May and asked that the match be awarded to Okaiawa on the grounds that Hawera played F. Atkins, a resident of the Okaiawa dkM trict. They also protested against Palea, in thd match played on April 22, for playing Sw Cameron and T. Sullivan, neither bring residents of the Patea district at the thne o£ playing. Some discussion took place on th* inter-4 pretation of the rule regarding residenoe, it being generally recognised that three nights* residence each week was the necessary real* dent lai qualification to enable a player taf play for any particular district. Mr. Harkness thought the interpretation was intended to apply to cases where a man working away froth home during th* week resided three nights at his home. > Mr. A. Lees (Normanby) explained that Mr. Atkins had removed to that district about two years ago and resided at Normanby. in the Okaiawa district, and played for that elub. He was still living In the same place. Okaiawa contended that froun the date of the Opunake match until the date of the Okaiawa match a fortnight later, he had not qualified for Hawera, as he still resided in the Okaiawa. district, and his ..If* and family were still there. The chairman pointed out that the inters pretation of the rule regarding residence wa* that a man must reside three nlgtts week in the district for which he played. Mr. Lees claimed that Atkins was still a. bona fide resident of the Okaiawa district, and it was for Hawera to prove that he was a resident of the district. They did not desire to bring his wife and relatives into th* matter. A signed letter was read from Mr. Atkins’ sister and brother-in-law stating that be had slept in the Ararata district on April 23, 24 and 25, and on April 30. May 1, and 2. The chairman said that the interpretation of the rule was bad and should probably be altered. A suggestion had been <m*de that the three days' residential qualification should apply to a man working away and residing at home. Mr. Lees held ttat such a matter should not have had to come before the union. It was a matter that should be left to the sporting spirit of the (dubs concerned* who should not play men under such condlw tions. Replying to the chairman, Mr. Lees stated that the general opinion in Okaiawa. wa* that the player wished to play for what hq thought was a better dub. The chairman considered that despite the interpretation of the rule, if it was felt that the residential qualification was being put ia merely for the sake of playing for a particular club, the union would hold that it had been done for an ulterior motive. Mr. Lees pointed out that the protest had been put in, in the interests of football, and not. with the object of having the gam® awarded to them. On the motion of the chairman, seconded by Mr. Guy, it was resolved that the protest be dismissed on the grounds that, on the evidence before the union, Atkins had temporarily compiled with the union’s interpretation of the residence dause, but that there is grave doubt that compliance with the interpretation is bona fide, and on this ground the union resolves that as from this date, and until his circumstances alter, Atkins’ place of residence is within the Okaiawn district. It was generally understood that in th* event of Okaiawa obtaining further evH dence tbe matter could be re-opened. OTHER PROTESTS. Patea protested against Okaiawa, on th* ground that the latter had played Laurent, who lived and resided in the Okaiawa <U*i trict. It was explained that this was due to a misunderstanding, as Okaiawa w were under th* impression that, pending the re-arrangement of boundaries they could, by mutual consent with the Hawera Club, play Laurent, who was not required by Hawera. At the opening w etIng of the year both Kaponga and Hawera had agreed to take no action, but apparently permission had not been asked from Patea. It was stated that Laurent was now working in the Hawera district and residing in Okaiawa. It was resolved to dismiss this protest, as well as the counter-one by Okaiawa against Patea. on the grounds that they did not com-* ply with the by-laws. With the object of definitely settling the residential question, the chairman gave notice to move that the union’s existing interpretation of the "place of abode” rule, fixing that residence of three nights per week be sufficient qualification, be rescinded, and that future interpretations shall be that a player be entitled to play for the club within wiaoa* boundaries he for the time being is in bsea fide employment, or the club within who** boundaries he has his permanent residenc*.