Hockey in Great Britain, Early Years

[Pominville Knows]

Very interesting.

Question about growth.

In the Montreal area within a generation, ice hockey had spread to the grade school and high school levels. Yet in Britain it seems to have stalled at the university/ graduate school level or adult.

Were there efforts to introduce the sports at the lower school levels in Britain? Other countries?

The lack of developmental hockey at the grade and high school levels seems to be one of the major differences between NA and European developmental models from the start thru today.

They dont have enough natural ice. Scotland is at the same longitude as the southern part of Sweden which also pretty much have a problem with this, although the Gulf Stream probably affects Britain more than us so they cant have much to brag about in this regard. This is probably a large contributing factor why hockey is a fringe sport in the very most southern part of Sweden, back in the day people could simply not play it on the pond very much.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Granted

They dont have enough natural ice. Scotland is at the same longitude as the southern part of Sweden which also pretty much have a problem with this, although the Gulf Stream probably affects Britain more than us so they cant have much to brag about in this regard. This is probably a large contributing factor why hockey is a fringe sport in the very most southern part of Sweden, back in the day people could simply not play it on the pond very much.

Granted but it does not go to interest or development at the youth level, specifically the school level.

Montreal, Quebec, Canada before artificial ice became commonplace with municipal arenas built starting in the early sixties had a 10-12 week window for outdoor hockey and skating, roughly Dec 15 - March 15. Early spring or snowstorms resulted in activities being cancelled unless they were playoffs or championships which would be played inside in arenas.

Still while ice hockey was developing at the youth level during a limited window there was a parallel hockey skills development of youngster going on. Floor hockey(variety of ringuette played on armory or gym floors), various forms of ball hockey in gyms, armories, available industrial space, in the streets, lanes, school yards, etc evolved and were encouraged. Example grade schools working with community centers or armories would have house or rep/select ball hockey teams at community centers, etc.

Similarly soccer during the winter or off season saw indoor soccer evolve from gyms, arenas and other venues where youngsters could kick a ball without causing damage.

So the lack of natural ice or facilities was not an obstacle to youthful passion. Was this the case in Europe? Were such hybrid activities encourage or tolerated?

 

[Theokritos]

Interesting question.

I haven't come across anything indicating there was an effort to introduce ice hockey at the lower school levels in Great Britain or other european countries in the time frame debated so far.

It would be interesting to compare the situation with the development in the USA if someone knows more about that area. Like many european countries the USA seemed to rely heavily on Canadian imports in the early days.

 

[Canadiens1958]

International Intercollegiate Hockey

Interesting question.

I haven't come across anything indicating there was an effort to introduce ice hockey at the lower school levels in Great Britain or other european countries in the time frame debated so far.

It would be interesting to compare the situation with the development in the USA if someone knows more about that area. Like many european countries the USA seemed to rely heavily on Canadian imports in the early days.

By the late thirties there was an eight team

Yet attendance to view exhibitions International Intercollegiate league between Canada and the USA featuring four teams from each country.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=KIwxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QagFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=6621,74353

USA - Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth
Canada - McGill, University of Montréal, Queen's and University of Toronto.

The university teams were fed by prep and high school players continuing their education and playing hockey. NHL quality players were produced. McGill actually had teams strong enough to also play in the top Senior league in Québec.

Britain had teams at Oxford and Cambridge yet the trickle down / trickle up effect did not seem to take place.

 

[Killion]

Britain had teams at Oxford and Cambridge yet the trickle down / trickle up effect did not seem to take place.

Ive wondered about it myself and though short on any real documentation, I think what were dealing with in the UK was & still is 3 factors;

1) Climate - with the exception of the northern Counties (like Yorkshire), including Scotland & Ireland, winters though sometimes brutal on the whole inconsistent season to season. Very little in the way of natural ice in more rural reclines let alone in cities where industrialization was well underway & the vast majority of the populations were centered. most notably London, Birmingham & Manchester; Glasgow & Edinburgh, Dublin & Northern Ireland.

2) Economy - The UK like elsewhere was hit hard by the Great Depression & more so than a lot of nations by WW1, lost generation who had grown up during the late Victorian & early Edwardian era's. Prior to WW1, a fascinating period really, of have's & have not's with massive disparities in wealth, a considerable amount of poverty in fact, the age of industrialization, Great Britain as the then World Superpower being eclipsed by the US. Loss of former Colonies, breakdown in the Class System...

3) Culture - Hockey a "gentlemans game", unique, niche, played primarily by Military & ex-pats at Cambridge, Oxford. An elite sport "from the colonies" and not something natural to British soil. In order to seriously foster its growth at the entry & amateur levels, infrastructure in the form of arenas' would have to be built and no one had any money for that but for a few. Football (soccer) and Rugby had huge head starts, both natural to the climate, far less onerous financially at the amateur levels in terms of participation amongst the lower & burgeoning middle classes. Ease of access. Included in school curriculum through Phys-Ed, School Teams & Leagues, Tournaments, Development Teams leading to Pro, a career, an escape for many from a life of drudgery in the shipyards or wherever. Hockey without actual facilities combined with costs of ice-time reflected in Registration Fee's & costs of equipment (which even today are much much higher than what we pay in North America & some parts of Europe) way beyond the reach of most people during the 30's, post WW2, well just forget about it, took Britain decades to recover from that one as we know.

 

[Canadiens1958]

British Columbia

^^^ Comparison to climate and slow growth may be made to British Columbia where hockey was basically imported by the Patricks. Youth hockey development seemed to lag until the post WWII arena boom.

Also school and university hockey seems to have lagged compared to eastern Canada or the central Canadian West - Winnipeg as an example. Even Alberta was further ahead.

WWI and II was a definite factor impacting the growth of hockey in Britain. Still, post WWII, various countries, mainly the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Sweden, Finland built programs that within a generation could compete with Canada.Britain lagged well behind. This generation time frame is very similar to the time it takes immigration waves to Canada adapted to hockey, producing NHL quality players - Johnny Gottselig, Charlie Cardiner, Bill Gadsby, Stan Mikita and others. Gardiner and Gatsby were British born. Granted that with soccer, rugby, and cricket as leading team sports in Britain, hockey was well behind.

The local hero factor. The USA had Hobey Baker. You refer correctly to the import factor in Britain. Short term imports may sustain a sport briefly - Cyclone Taylor in B.C. but local stars have to emerge, reinforcing the value of the grassroots structure.

 

[Pominville Knows]

Granted but it does not go to interest or development at the youth level, specifically the school level.

Montreal, Quebec, Canada before artificial ice became commonplace with municipal arenas built starting in the early sixties had a 10-12 week window for outdoor hockey and skating, roughly Dec 15 - March 15. Early spring or snowstorms resulted in activities being cancelled unless they were playoffs or championships which would be played inside in arenas.

Still while ice hockey was developing at the youth level during a limited window there was a parallel hockey skills development of youngster going on. Floor hockey(variety of ringuette played on armory or gym floors), various forms of ball hockey in gyms, armories, available industrial space, in the streets, lanes, school yards, etc evolved and were encouraged. Example grade schools working with community centers or armories would have house or rep/select ball hockey teams at community centers, etc.

Similarly soccer during the winter or off season saw indoor soccer evolve from gyms, arenas and other venues where youngsters could kick a ball without causing damage.

So the lack of natural ice or facilities was not an obstacle to youthful passion. Was this the case in Europe? Were such hybrid activities encourage or tolerated?

Yeah... They still had very little natural ice and the early hockey we're talking about here had lots of time to die out before artificial ice was an option perhaps in the sixties.
If a country has very limited natural ice, a game on ice will have problems rooting no matter the decade.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Part 4

They managed to assemble a team for the 1924 Olympics that mainly consisted of Canadians whose service in the British Army had earned them citizenship.

William Anderson was the only British raised player on the team.
http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/an/william-anderson-3.html

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Part 4

While the Canadians of Oxford were as good as invincible, their lack of British citizenship stopped them from representing Great Britain at the European Championship and the Winter Olympics. Alternatives were scarce since the domestic circuit was still in shambles. In fact, when the British Ice Hockey Association was re-established in 1923, only one rink in Great Britain was actually in use for hockey games. Looking elsewhere, the Association under Patton (see Part 3) turned to British citizens who who had grown up in Canada and learned to play hockey there. They managed to assemble a team for the 1924 Olympics that mainly consisted of Canadians whose service in the British Army had earned them citizenship.

All of those players were already British subjects upon birth (Canadian citizenship didn't exist until 1910, and was not separate from British citizenship until 1947)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Canadian_nationality_law

The Commonwealth Heads of Government decided in 1948 to embark on a major change in the law of nationality throughout the Commonwealth, following Canada's decision to enact its own citizenship law in 1946. Until then all Commonwealth countries, with the exception of the Irish Free State (see Irish nationality law), had a single nationality status: British subject status. It was decided at that conference that the United Kingdom and the self-governing dominions would each adopt separate national citizenships, but retain the common status of British subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_British_nationality_law
All Canadian soldiers in WWI were technically under British command, so military service should not have made any difference. On the 1924 team, for example, there is Edward Pitbaldo. His only direct connection to Great Britain was that he had been a student at Oxford since 1922 (he served in WWI, as did Lester Pearson)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Pitblado
http://www.umanitoba.ca/libraries/units/archives/collections/rad/pitblado_family.html
He was a British subject who was domiciled in Britain.

 

[Theokritos]

All of those players were already British subjects upon birth (Canadian citizenship didn't exist until 1910, and was not separate from British citizenship until 1947)

Thank you very much for pointing that out, seems like I have to re-write those passage then. Although I'm not quite sure what to write:

1910 LIHG Congress:
L'assemblée décide en effet d'interdire l'usage des joueurs étrangers dans les équipes nationales, mesure qui paraît comme allant de soi mais qui n'est pas dans les mœurs. Les tournois internationaux se déroulent en effet le plus souvent avec des équipes de club, qui incluent généralement des Canadiens exilés. Toutefois, cette interdiction ne prendra en effet qu'en 1911, et le Prince's Club pourra donc prendre part à la compétition avec ses Canadiens sous les couleurs anglaises.

So Canadians were not allowed to represent England or Great Britain from 1911 on, but not based on a lack of British citizenship. Then based on their (additional) Canadian citizenship? Hardly imaginable if you consider some of the Great Britain rosters. I have to look into that issue before carrying on with the thread.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Thank you very much for pointing that out, seems like I have to re-write those passage then. Although I'm not quite sure what to write:



So Canadians were not allowed to represent England or Great Britain from 1911 on, but not based on a lack of British citizenship. Then based on their (additional) Canadian citizenship? Hardly imaginable if you consider some of the Great Britain rosters. I have to look into that issue before carrying on with the thread.

Thank you for the link, I find the situation confusing as well. I don't know what the IOC rules were at the time. In the case of Pitblado, his qualifications are similar to Lester Pearson's. Father born in Canada, grandfather born in the British Isles, served with Canadian units in WWI, students at Oxford.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Translation

Thank you very much for pointing that out, seems like I have to re-write those passage then. Although I'm not quite sure what to write:



So Canadians were not allowed to represent England or Great Britain from 1911 on, but not based on a lack of British citizenship. Then based on their (additional) Canadian citizenship? Hardly imaginable if you consider some of the Great Britain rosters. I have to look into that issue before carrying on with the thread.

Translation of the LIHG:

The Assembly decides to prohibit the use of foreign players on national teams a measure that appears obvious but which is not in fact. International tournaments take place in fact most often with club teams, which typically include exiled Canadians. However, this ban will take effect in 1911, and Prince's Club will therefore take part in the competition with Canadians under English colors.


Comments.

Looking at how the Olympics were governed, specifically in regards to Canadian born residents as well as those of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and other British Commonwealth nations.

The use of foreign and exiled in the French and English translation points to a criteria that was not based strictly on citizenship. Residency as defined by academic activity or employment seems to be a factor.

Also the application of the dual citizenship concept should be looked into.

 

[Hardyvan123]

^^^ Comparison to climate and slow growth may be made to British Columbia where hockey was basically imported by the Patricks. Youth hockey development seemed to lag until the post WWII arena boom.

Also school and university hockey seems to have lagged compared to eastern Canada or the central Canadian West - Winnipeg as an example. Even Alberta was further ahead.

WWI and II was a definite factor impacting the growth of hockey in Britain. Still, post WWII, various countries, mainly the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Sweden, Finland built programs that within a generation could compete with Canada.Britain lagged well behind. This generation time frame is very similar to the time it takes immigration waves to Canada adapted to hockey, producing NHL quality players - Johnny Gottselig, Charlie Cardiner, Bill Gadsby, Stan Mikita and others. Gardiner and Gatsby were British born. Granted that with soccer, rugby, and cricket as leading team sports in Britain, hockey was well behind.

The local hero factor. The USA had Hobey Baker. You refer correctly to the import factor in Britain. Short term imports may sustain a sport briefly - Cyclone Taylor in B.C. but local stars have to emerge, reinforcing the value of the grassroots structure.

Climate and concentrated population in BC are major factors on why developed lagged far behind in BC than in other provinces.

Basically the outdoor game was stymied in greater Vancouver and greater Victoria while the rest of the province was sparsely populated and travel for youth teams was really limited until fairly recently.

One can simply look at the number of NHL players produced by BC, which was sparse until the basically the 70's.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/friv/birthplaces.cgi?country=CA&province=BC&state=

 

[Killion]

Climate and concentrated population in BC are major factors on why developed lagged far behind in BC than in other provinces.

Basically the outdoor game was stymied in greater Vancouver and greater Victoria while the rest of the province was sparsely populated and travel for youth teams was really limited until fairly recently.

Indeed. Most of the players came from the Kootenays, other parts of the interior which did & do experience winter climates. Travel difficult & dangerous to say the least, vast distances through winding mountain passes at some serious elevations on lousy roads & highways (even with all of the improvements made) making it almost suicidal at times to even contemplate. The climate of a Coastal Rainforest on the Lower Mainland & Vancouver Island creating another set of problems altogether. Games like Lacrosse, Soccer, Football, Baseball & Basketball played en mass whereas hockey, not quite so much. Certainly since the 60's though with arenas going up, participation levels ever increasing....

 

[Theokritos]

The eligibility question

1910 LIHG/IIHF decision
The Assembly decides to prohibit the use of foreign players on national teams a measure that appears obvious but which is not in fact. International tournaments take place in fact most often with club teams, which typically include exiled Canadians. However, this ban will take effect in 1911, and Prince's Club will therefore take part in the competition with Canadians under English colors.

1920 Olympics
...the rules governing the games provide that each player must be a citizen of the country under whose flag he plays.

The quotes show that you needed to be a citizen of the country you were representing in the European and/or World Championships and/or Olympics in order to be eligible. However, as Uncle Rotter has pointed out above, this can not have affected the eligibility of Canadians competing for the Great Britain since there was no Canadian citizenship separate from British citizenship before 1947. Up to that point a "Canadian" was technically & legally speaking a British citizen who was either born in Canada or domiciled there (=resident for five years) or naturalized as a British citizen there. If you were Canadian you were British citizen by default. So what LIHG/IIHF or IOC regulations were in place to govern the eligibility of Canadians to play for Great Britain?


Example 1: The case of Lorne Carr-Harris, born in Kingston/Ontario:

1924 Olympics
Lorne Carr-Harris qualified for Great Britain through his English father and also by residence.

Father: Robert Carr-Harris was born in England 1843 and emigrated with his family in 1851. See Wikipedia entries for Lorne Carr-Harris and his grandfather Alexander Harris. Residence: Lorne joined the British Army, graduated from the Royal Military College of Canada in 1917 and was stationed in the UK in 1924. See Wikipedia entry for Lorne Carr-Harris.

Ancestry (father) and residence appear as conditions that granted eligibility, and each alone was a sufficient condition in itself at that, so the wording suggests. By implication this tells that Canadians (=British citizens born/naturalized/domiciled in Canada) were not eligible to play for Great Britain as long as they were not resident in Great Britain, except their father happened to be born there.


Example 2: The case of Frank Morris, who had played for Canada at the 1931 World Championship. One year later the British Ice Hockey Association argued he was eligible to play for Great Britain at the 1932 European Championship:

1932 LIHG/IIHF decision #1
The British want to qualify the player, who lives in Zürich, on the grounds that his parents are English, but the Congress of the Federation refuses his participation.

Ancestry (parents) again appears as condition sufficient to grant eligibility. Would be interesting to know what reasoning the LIHG/IIHF exactly gave for their ruling. Most likely the fact that he had represented another country before.


Example 3: At the same Congress the eligibility of Edgar Murphy and Charles Michaelis to play for France was also subject of discussion:

1932 LIHG/IIHF decision #2
This decision [on Frank Morris] opens a new question about Murphy and Michaelis, two players of the team of France who have American nationality. After a long debate, it was decided that a player from another country will be allowed to play for his adopted country only if he has played hockey [there] for over ten years. Therefore, if Murphy is qualified, Charles Michaelis is prohibited from participating: although he grew up in France, this rugged defender of 22 years [of age] has played hockey [there] for [only] six or seven years.

This decision applied to players naturalized as citizens in an "adopted country". But did it also apply to Canadians? After all they were British citizens anyway, no naturalization needed.

1936 Olympics
British authorities pointed out the only Canadian-born members of the squad, George Davey and Gordon Dailley, are qualified to play for England, because they have spent at least five years in the United Kingdom.

(Side note: The name of the former player is actually Gerry Davey and it was later disputed they had the two of them spent five years in Great Britain.)

There are two important pieces of information in the quote. First of all, the decision on Michaelis either applied to Canadians too (with the required period of time shortened from 10 to 5 years at some point between 1932 and 1936) or there was a similar ruling issued affecting Canadians in Great Britain. Second, the ruling only affected Canadians who were born in Canada and not those British citizens who had come to Canada after emigrating from their birthplace in Great Britain. That they were exempt is also implied by the following quote:

1936 LIHG/IIHF decision
In order that there may be no more mixups such as the one that raged over Britain's players, it was agreed hereafter that no native born Briton may play in the Olympics for his native country unless he has lived in England the preceding five years.

Until that decisions British citizens born in Great Britain didn't have to fulfill any additional requirements (as opposed to British citizens born elsewhere, for example in Canada), even if they had moved to Canada and had become Canadians by residing there for at least 5 years.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thoughts? Objections?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Excellent

^^^ Excellent contribution, very well researched.

The ancestry and residency are joined in many instances since ancestry dictated certain rights - British citizenship to Canadians and in the case of minors determined residency in the formative years of an youngsters participation in a sport.

The fluid nature of the rules and interpretations should not be a concern as the world was changing in terms of the ability of people to migrate.

Actually grew more complicated over the years, especially post WWII when the children of immigrants started going to European teams from Canada to play hockey. Some were allowed to play internationally for the national team of their parent's origin.

 

[Theokritos]

^^^ Excellent contribution, very well researched.

Thanks. I'm still not convinced the last word has been spoken on the 1910 LIHG ruling though. If the purpose was to prevent teams loaded with Canadians (like Prince's Club & Oxford Canadians) from representing England/Great Britain at European Championships, then an allowance for Canadians residing in Britain would have been counterproductive. The Federation would have torpedoed its own undertaking and introduced a useless rule. It's more likely that residency was not yet a condition back then in that early decision.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Growth Rate

Thanks. I'm still not convinced the last word has been spoken on the 1910 LIHG ruling though. If the purpose was to prevent teams loaded with Canadians (like Prince's Club & Oxford Canadians) from representing England/Great Britain at European Championships, then an allowance for Canadians residing in Britain would have been counterproductive. The Federation would have torpedoed its own undertaking and introduced a useless rule. It's more likely that residency was not yet a condition back then in that early decision.

The ruling should be examined in the context of the growth rate of British ice hockey at that time. Example. McGill vs Harvard, pre WWI produced results favourable results for both sides:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=82430413&postcount=263

What was the situation in Britain and Europe? Where Canadian loaded teams dominating or was it a temporary phenomena. Was the game growing - more European teams and players every year.

Basic issue is whether it was a recruiting Canadians contest or an athletic contest initially driven by Canadians.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

The ruling should be examined in the context of the growth rate of British ice hockey at that time. Example. McGill vs Harvard, pre WWI produced results favourable results for both sides:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=82430413&postcount=263

What was the situation in Britain and Europe? Where Canadian loaded teams dominating or was it a temporary phenomena. Was the game growing - more European teams and players every year.

Basic issue is whether it was a recruiting Canadians contest or an athletic contest initially driven by Canadians.

When the British League started in the 1930s, they had a quota of at least 4 "British" players per team. Which is what led to Bunny Ahearne beating the bushes for Canadians who could qualify. The 1936 Olympics was a by-product of this.

 

[Theokritos]

What was the situation in Britain and Europe? Where Canadian loaded teams dominating or was it a temporary phenomena. Was the game growing - more European teams and players every year.

By 1910 (when the ruling was issued) domination by Canadian-heavy teams was in full force. The more I think about it the more likely it appears that the 1910 ruling did not allow Canadians residing in Britain to play for England/Great Britain.

When the British League started in the 1930s, they had a quota of at least 4 "British" players per team. Which is what led to Bunny Ahearne beating the bushes for Canadians who could qualify. The 1936 Olympics was a by-product of this.

My impression is that it was the other way round: The quota was introduced to provide Great Britain with Canadians eligible for the Olympics.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Quota etc.

By 1910 (when the ruling was issued) domination by Canadian-heavy teams was in full force. The more I think about it the more likely it appears that the 1910 ruling did not allow Canadians residing in Britain to play for England/Great Britain.



My impression is that it was the other way round: The quota was introduced to provide Great Britain with Canadians eligible for the Olympics.

Getting more interesting with every discovery and bit of information.

First, back to 1910. Eligibility to play for a university team vs eligibility to represent a country internationally or even play for a team outside the university while a student are three distinct issues.

1934 C.A.H.A. addressed this within its jurisdiction and indirectly outside Canada.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=82466243&postcount=267

The build-up to the 1936 Olympics is an interesting period. The "at least 4 British players" has to be defined within the game day roster / team roster distinction. Team roster players who rarely dressed or played are the key.

The 1934 C.A.H.A. rule changes may be viewed as a counter-measure to British teams actively recruiting Canadian players. Key element would be the transfer deadlines and how they coincide between nations and between league schedules.

The January 1 deadline adopted by the C.A.H.A. could have a dual effect. Preclude transfers within Canada from weak/eliminated teams and preclude temporary mid-season transfers outside Canadian borders and jurisdictions.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

My impression is that it was the other way round: The quota was introduced to provide Great Britain with Canadians eligible for the Olympics.

http://www.canada.com/olympics/news...ow-in-the-footsteps-of-this-famous-windsorite
Has anyone read Jovanovic's book?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Great

http://www.canada.com/olympics/news...ow-in-the-footsteps-of-this-famous-windsorite
Has anyone read Jovanovic's book?

Great contribution. The Maritime teams were raiding Manitoba and Ontario senior teams for players. The link - coach, between the Moncton Allan Cup championship team and the 1936 British Olympic team is noteworthy.

As posted earlier, the C.A.H.A addressed this. Looking for information about how returning players were viewed by the C.A.H.A and affiliated bodies.

 

[Eagle Eye Cherry]

This thread is pretty interesting. I wonder why hockey never really carried on with the Brits many years after considering their decent hockey level in the early years.

 

[Theokritos]

http://www.canada.com/olympics/news...ow-in-the-footsteps-of-this-famous-windsorite
Has anyone read Jovanovic's book?

Unfortunately I haven't.

From the link you've posted:

“The clubs had to have a certain number of players on each roster with a British passport and there were simply not enough home-trained players to fill out the squads,†said British author Rob Jovanovic, whose book Pride And Glory, The Forgotten Story of Great Britain’s Greatest Olympic Team, explores the fascinating journey of Great Britain’s 1936 ice hockey team to Olympic gold in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.

Rules of the league required a minimum of four players with British passports, so BIHF president Philip Vassar Hunter dispatched secretary Bunny Ahearne (...) to North America to locate high-end Canadian amateurs who held British passports.

As we have established Canadians were British citizens per default, so the article seems to make the same mistake I made earlier when it claims the BIHF was looking for Canadians "who held British passports".

My second remark: Who put the "rules of the league" in place if not the BIHF itself? If this is true then they were not merely reacting to provisions from anybody else when they started searching for players in Canada and the 1936 Olympic roster was not merely a byproduct. Instead the rules were put in place by the BIHF to provide the British League with a foundation of high-end Canadian players who were eligible to represent Great Britain internationally.