THE FOOTBALL MATCH AT WELLINGTON.

Auckland Star, Volume XXI, Issue 4115, 14 September 1883, Page 2

THE FOOTBALL MATCH AT WELLINGTON.

Press Opinions on tho Rosult,

[BY TELEGRAPH.—OWN CORRESPONDENT,]

Wellington, this day. Interest in the dispute over Saturday's match continues unabated. The "Post" tonight devotes a column te the subject The editor says:—"As wo are appealed to we may say our opinion is that those who betted on \\ ellington won, for thefollowine reasons : There can bo no question that had tho Wellington captain insisted on the decision ol the referee been adhered to, that decision must .have been accepted as final, and tho victory or' the local team could not possibly have been im pugned. The present complication has arisen solely from the fact that Campbell to prevent a disagreeable scene, waived what were his undoubted rights In %__ matter. Now comes the conflict of test/ mony as to how far the concession extended. The Auckland captain understood the score was given up entirely, while Mr' Campbell says he only consented to foreso the kick at goal, but intimated he intended to score a try. In this difficulty we accent implicitly the word of both gentle men ns to what each understood was tho arrangement. It __, manifest, however, that Campbell, in makinrr a concession of his undoubted rights purely as a matter of grace, was entitled to say how far tho concession should extend and further, is now in the best position to say: how far he did actually extend it. That Henderson should have misunderstood him is no fault of his. The difficulties that havo arisen with regard to bets show move than ever how unfortunate it waa that Campbell, in his mistaken sense ofchivab-y.gaveup his unimpeachable righto Had the Aucklanders been allowed to carry out their undignified threat of walking off the field, of course, however much the conIretemps might be regretted, thero could not have been the slightest ground for the present differences as to tho result.

Firth, who acted as umpire for Welling- > ton in the match, gives the following . account of the circumstances under which i the dispute arose : " Cotter called back for i ' throw on' after Webb obtained a touch- :' down. I was appcalod to, and gave my decision, 'It was ail fair.' Cotteris reported i to have said that I was 40 yards away ; and not in a position to see i properly what happened. I was a con--1 sideiable distance from play at the time I perhaps 40 yards, but I had carefully kept > myself level with the play for the very purpose of watching the pass which w_ > plainly coming. Therefore, I was iust as well able as Mr Cotter to Bee whether the i pass was fair or not. Cotter also says soiue i i of the Wellington team acknowledged that 1 the ball was thrown on. Does Cotter' really think I should have been guided by ' that 1 I paid no more attention to that i than to the fact that nearly all the Wei- ' lington team and two-thirds of the specta- ■ tors condemned my decision with regard to i the Auckland goal. In either case the. 1 decision would bo exactly the same l had Ito give it again. I take it an umpire ■ should pay attention to the. opinion otho,, ' one but himself. Tlie Mayor of Auckland ' I says : 'It was agreed that if either uni- • pires called the ball back no further reference was required.' There was no such ; arrangement. Henderson says that at the ' ; dinner the Wellington umpire ' referred to i the match as a draw.' The umpire did not speak of tho game as a draw. I think-the ; Auckland men are wrong, but to say the least' > of it.they had very hard luck, and, though . ; there had been a great deal of talk about :' discourteous conduct, we should remember i that courtesy on our part was just as necessary as on their side." 1 The Referee's Version. • - , Wright, who acted as referee at the match, wires as follows :—" I have been requested to give a statement of facts con- ' cerning the decision given by me as referee at Saturday's match, which lias been alleged by the Auckland captain and umpire to bo erroneous. Although, as a general rule, I do not approve of a referee justifying his decisions, - \ yet, after tho statements made at tlie dinner at Auck1 and, I feel it a duty to myself to \ put on record the true facts of the case so ' far as lam concerned. At the time of the alleged ' throw on ' I was about 15 yards: ' away from the spot, and about five off the' ! direct line of play, nnd near the Auckland., goal line; so that from my position in the; | field I was perfectly able to decide whether improper play took place or not, The assertion by the Auckland umpire that I was 70 yards away is a monstrous exaggeration, and bears inaccuraoy on the face of it. Tho field itself is only 75 yards wide, and as the play was at the Auckland 25-yard flags, and about midway between . the side touch lines, his statement, if true, ; would show I was standing at least 30 yards outside the field of play altogether. I. i was appealed to as to whether the ball was thrown on or not, and I decided it waa not. ; I was convinced at tlie time, and am so now, that my decision was correct. ; Wellington Feeling Over the Matcli.-A Queer Report, The Press Association's report of the , match, published in the Southern papers, , was very severe on the conduct of the Auck- . landers. It says:—"lt was pitiful to see how tlie Northern forwards wound up when the game went against them, and if any advantage was to be obtained by off-side the visitors were not slow to grasp the op-" portunity." Tho reporter further expresses , the opinion that the Aucklanders played tho' "meanest game ever played here." The " Lyttelton Times" of yesterday condemns the tone of the Association's re- ; port. Commending the reports of the local papers, which it admits to be moderate in tono, it says :—" Wellington undoubtedly , won the game by a goal and a try trip a goal, Wellington thus stands uijtlip ! proud position of champion of the cor«K, having defeated each rival province vi turn,' The paper, after quoting the report, adds :—"lf this account bo correct.'' and it appears fair enough, there can be fijjrj doubt the Auckland men had no right to claim a draw. Dunedin might just as vvdjl'! have threatened to leave the field if Austin's r disputed try was not allowed after the" referee had decided against. them. Once. having appointed a referee,'his decision' cannot be really disputed, otherwise, there would bo no use 'in having" one. The result of the" three matches shews that, if not in skill, yet in knowledge.'. of the rules, the Northern players are a long way behind the Southern footballers. Press Opinions of tbe Assso elation ~ Report. Tho following are the reports of Southern': papers : — ... Lyttelton Times.—" The account of _«:> football match between Auckland and Wei-" lington, telegraphed round the colony by.'^ one of tho Wellington reporters of tho Press Association, is certainly very amusing. ! In tho matter of coherency it is worthy ci its origin,' Wellington," '.", ', 'j ..■ "Press."—"As regards tho feeling.notto ' say animus, shown therein, it has „_sms? for unfavourable criticism, which is partly ■: i deserved and partly not." ."Otago Daily Times."—lf -we art toY judgo by. tho Press Association's report of'; the Auckland-Wellington football, match V (which report, hoiyover, \ XM evidently teawritten by a strong Wellington partisan; •'■ whose excitement has also interfered with his lucidity), the play was marked by soma disagreeable features. Appealing: fa. umpires, and disregarding their decisions, ." seems to have been the rule. The report leaves it a little doubtful what was the true result. The reporter, in his enthusiasm, '*" will have it that Auckland did not score at all, and that Wellington got two goals and a try; but the umpire's decision was | apparently a goal and a try to Wellington,", and a goal to Auckland." ' , ■'~;' "Dunedin Star."—"Tho report of the match forwarded by tho Press Association is a most uniquo ono, and tho writer should I at once retire." " Dunedin Herald."—" The Press Association has supplied us with a mosts remarkable account of the football match, ' Wellington v. Auckland. The description of the play throughout is vory involved, and an exceptional amount of prejudice appears to be displayed by the reporter.. Beeling must havo run very high indeed over the match to induce such a one-sided report." "Timaru Herald,"— "Wetpublish thif, morning, in somewhat condensed form, tele*;* graphic report of the football match be-., tween the Auckland and Wellington teams, ~-- played at Wellington on Saturday. -'iFroin!the tone in which it is written, we fancy tho reporter would have an unequal and unpleasant match to play if the Auckland' team got hold of him. He would probably find himself in tho middle of a 'scrimmage 'in no time, and bo ' cellared' and 'forced down;' and whatever the amended . Rugby rules may say, would find 'hacking' being indulge'- in, [to would get »7 few 'inaiks,' but the other side wouldnavo 'free kick:-;,' and thy Aucklanders, clever at ' pooling out" would finish tho gamo instead of beginning it with a good ' kick- . ( off.' Ho dispraises the Auckland mon right ■': c,pil loft, and only once puts in a worator their credit."