NEXT SOCCER CHALLENGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 197, 22 August 1939, Page 15

NEXT SOCCER CHALLENGE.

CAN CANTERBURY WIN?

STRONGEST TEAM COMING.

SOUTHERN VICTORY IN 1936.

In spite of misgivings about the soundness of Auckland's depleted defence, and fears that Wellington's strengthened sitle would take the Soccer premiership from Auckland, the holders surprised by retaining the laurels with a larger margin than ev-er. It is true the Auckland middle line was "shaky" throughout, but the lull-backs were safe and sure and never liiltered. Local supporters had some anxious moments before the Auckland attacking brigade got into action late in the game. Then they got goals galore, with the Wellington defence wilting badly. Tt was a triumph of youth and dash over age and experience.

J Canterbury being unable to accept the challenge date offered, the ooutn islanders were hopeful Wellington would lift the trophy and take it to the capital city, where it would have been much handier for attack than in tlie long journey to Auckland. But the Cantabs are confident of mustering full strength for the journey north, and with the code going so strong there the Southerners are sure to be dangerous challengers. On their last visit here in 1036 Canterbury took the trophy somewhat easily, with an eleven which towered over the local side and won the giune mostly in the air with superior head work. Drummond Cup. Before Canterbury's challenge- is met the Auckland representatives will have [another hard trial against the Xavy in the final for the Drummond Cup. At present each side has a win in, and Xavy, as holder, will be all out to avenge their last defeat. The naval test should afford an opportunity of strengthening Auckland's half line, and it is hoped deal (Auckland and Ponsonby skipper) will be back in action before then. Irritating Interruptions.

There was some impatience displayed by spectators on Saturday in the first half of the trophy match at what several thought unnecessary "flagging" of the wing-halves for faulty throwing from touch. Representative halves usually know the law thoroughly, but their practice does not always coincide with the idea of all linesmen. One Auckland half was distinctly perturbed by several penalising, and appealed to the referee when the linesman declined any explanation.

The new law as redrafted and applied this season leaves little doubt on this point. The law states that the hall may be thrown in any direction, and that the thrower must face the field of play. As the field of play extends to all four corner flags, this means facing anywhere towards the playing arena. The law further states that "part of each foot shall 'be either on or outside the touchline" at the moment of delivery. So that tip-toe is a legitimate stance, and "the ball shall ■be in play immediately it is thrown" (which allows of lifting either foot after the ball has •been thrown). Also the ball must be thrown with both hands from over the head. Tf players and linesmen would make themselves familiar with this simple pile it would save unnecessary hoTd-ups in the play, and there is no scope for any controversy on so simple a law.

Contrary to the general opinion the new laws make no provision for the linesman to "flag" a foul throw, except the general instruction that neutral linesmen should assist the referee in every instance where that official is not in a position to see for himself. Where the referee has a clear view he should ignore other advice if satisfied everything is fair. There is only one man in charge of the game.