ATHLETICS.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 9125, 8 June 1895, Page 4

ATHLETICS.

"Weekly Press" THE 440 YARDS~HURDLE CHAMPIONSHIP. RULING OF THE N.Z.A.A.A. A QUESTIONABLE DECISION. THE MISBEHAVIOUR AT NAPIER. [Bγ Vadxter.l When writing (just after the Championship Meeting) of Harley's protest against the placing of Roberts and Martin first and second in the 440 yds Hurdles, I expressed the opinion, &9 I had heard there was some doubt a 9 to whether the protest was put in in proDer form, that everything seemed in order. As I indicated, however, after Ihe recent finding of the governing body with regard to the appeal of Marti a and the Auckland A.A.C., I was nob at all satisfied that the protest had been dealt with by the proper officers of the meeting, and I promised to return to the subject. Circumstances have prevented mc from carrying out my promise earlier. I have, however, had more opportunity of studying the rules that apply to tho matter. And I may *ay the more I look into the question the more convinced I am that the judges were wrong in deliberating and giving a decision on Harley's protest—that is, taking the intention of the N.Z.A.A.A.'s rules, which are very similar to those of the English Association. It ia not my intention to again go into the question, just now at all events, as to whether Roberts and Martin competed fairly or unfairly. That ie not necessary for purpose, which is to endeavour to show that the N.Z.A.A.A. failed to srrasp the position of affairs. In the face of the opinion of such a learned legal practitioner as Mr H. D. Bell, who is a vice prosident of the Association, and other gentlemen well versod in athletic matters, it will probably be concluded by some who read so far that I have no case. But all the same I think I shall be able to make out a very good one, and to show by the rules that Mr Bell and others who argued on the same side have missed tbe point.

First of all let us take the rules relating to the appointment of officials for a meeting. I. The officials shall consist of :— Section 1. A. committee in whose hands shall be placed all matter* tvhich do not relate to the actual conduct of the meeting itself, and who slia'l hive a final decision in all cases not provided for in the rules of the meeting. Section 2 Two or more judges whose joint decision shall be final tn every competition and with whom shall rest the power to disqualify every competitor. Section 3. All protests against a competitor . . . shall be made to the secretary of the club in ivnting before the prizes are distributed, and if the protest shall not be made good within one calendar month the prize shall be awarded. . .

I have italicised certain, portions of the above rules that I lay great stress upon. I say at once that I consider the Committee was the proper body to deal with Harley's protest. First of all it is riot laid down in the whole of the code of rules who is to consider protests, but it will be seen that Section 1 orders that the committee shall hare a final decision in all cases not ■ provided for by the rules of the meeting. I contend that this alone would be sufficient to bear out my opinion. But I will go further. All matters that do not relate to (he actual conduct of the meeting iteelf shall be placed in the hands' of the commictee. Now is the consideration of a protest part of the actual conduct of a meeting. I aay emphatically no. The very fact that a protest need not be made good for a month shows to my mind what was the intention of tae framere of the rules. A protest is a something after a competition. It Iβ not part of such, which brings mc to what I have to say about Section 2 concerning the judges. Here it is laid down that the judges decision shall be final in every competition, and power of disqualification shall rest with them. Mark the words every com' petition. What is a competition ? A* aoon ac the men in the 410 yds Hurdle Championship had passed the judges, that competition was over. It was clearly at an end. The part of ihe Section 2 referring to the power of the judges to disqualify must, of course, be read in conjunction with the first part, by which I wish to shew that the judges have only power to disqualify before the competition is over— that is before they piace the competitors. Section sof Rule 3 says " . . It shall be the duty of the referee to report to the judges any competitor or competitors whose competing he considers unfair,' which means of course that the referee, on seeing anything unfair, would at once seek the judge, so he would be in the possession of tho facts Before he gave his decision. And it is hero that the judge's power of disqualification comes in. Let us look at walking contests. It is laid down bj Section 9 that the disqualification of walkers in a race ehall be left to the decision of the judges of walking, and have readers not seen frequently men disqualified during a contest for lifting and other causes! These disqualifications are always imposed before the competition is closed. Once the judges place the men, which is really their maiu duty, I say the competition is at an end, and the meeting being over the duties of the judges for the time being are concluded. Not so those of the committee. Otherwise (vide Rule III) who is to consider the protest if evidence to prove it is not forthcoming, say, for three weeks but the commi tee, "in whose h&nds shall be placed all matters which do not relate to the actual conduct of the meeting itself." A meeting can be carried through surely, though a protest be entered, and held over —that Iβ clear by Rule 111. The protest m»y affect the result of an event, but not the conduct of the meeting. Hence it is quite clear to mc that it was never intended by the f ramer* of the rules, nor by the rules as they read, that judges should hear protests.

I find I am supported strongly in my contentions by the N.Z. Cyclists , Alliance racing rules, in which certainly the duties of the various offL-ials are somewhat moro clearly defined than is the case with the athletic rule*. It will make the position I take up stronger (but I think without it is unassailable) if I quote some of the Alliance rules. . 65. The referee shall have general supervision of the race meeting. Hα shall give judgment on the protests received by him. . . He shall . . disqualify any competitor who may become liable to disqualification. Ho shall decide all question* whose settlement U not otherwise provided for in these rules. 66. The judges shall decide the positions of the men at the finish. . . Their decision as to the order in which the men finish shall be final and without appeal. 82. ... Any protest respecting foul riding or brra;h of rules must be made to the referee within ten minutes after the heat or race ia finished. . .

Now here we have Ib clearly laid down who is to receive and determine protests, and mark my italics in rale 66 above. Does that rale not clearly show what the sole duty of a judge is and go to bear oat ray contention that the powers of athletic judges with regard to their decision being final in every competition refers simply to the placing of the men as they finish. Mr Bell says the Association cannot consider any protest against the decision of the judges, and the fact that Roberts and Martin were not) called at the the enquiry re protest cannot affect the finality and validity of their decision. I contend the Association can hear an apptal against the decision of the judge** aot m far m the placing of the

men goes, but as regards their verdict on the protest enquiry, which is null and void, as it was nob held by the proper parties. I think after due consideration those who looked at this Hurdle Championship matter hastily will fall in with my conclusions.

My firm conviction ie tha- the proper course for the N.Z.A.A.A. to have taken was to have ordered Haxley'e protest to be re-heard, but by the committee of the Championship Meeting. If. might hare been difficult, so long after the meeting, for the matter to hare been adjudicated upon by the committee, but I cannot help feeling that would have been the right thing to have done. The grave omission made by the judges, too, could then have been rectified. Robert-* and Martin could have been invited to be present at the enquiry to hear what was to be alleged against them.

Ie would seem that there Is not much doubt as to the advisability of going; through the rules and clearing up some of the ambiguity that at present exists. A subcommittee was lately appointed to undertake the task. I would suggest that the duties of officials at meeting* be clearly laid down and that it should bo «et forth in plain and unmistakable terms by whom protests are to be heard and determined.

With regard to the misbehaviour of certain amateurs on the evening of the Championship Meeting, so far as I have been able to make out since first writing on the regrettable scene, ft seems to have been something in the shape of a drunken scramble, with one of the Aucklanders the most prominent figure — certainly the most aggressive. The disqualification of the A ickland hurdlers appears to have rankled in the breasts of their friends— not perhaps unnaturally. But I think the failure of the Auckland flat runners was also a sore point with some of the team. I have no doubt,'too, that the great bane of araareur sport in Auckland, betting, bad something to do with the sore mood that one or two of the Aucklanders appeared to be in. This betting may have excited in Auckland a large amount of interest in the sport, but it is not a healthy interest. The system of so much on nomination and so much on acceptance for men enteting, and the bookmakers' betting cards, as are in vogue for horee races, may suit interested people who only patronise a sport for what they can mike out of it, but the plan is more fitted to professional running rank* than to Amateur circles. I am aware, as I have stated in previous issues, that the Auckland Club has taken steps to abite the hotting nuisance, and the recent move by the City Council with regard so betting in the Domain is to be commended. Bat I hear that when an athletic meeting is on bookmakers are to be found waiting outside the fence of the Domain, ready and willing to "lay the odds." But a true amateur will have no inclination to wager on his efforts. It remain* mostly with the ronners them* selves whether betting is to flourish in amateur sport. Certainly Auckland is the only place where I have known of betting to any extent amongst amateurs themselves.

But to return to the Napter squabble. As 1 stated in a previous issue, I hear that in some quarters, and especially Iα Auckland, the opinion has been expressed that thoiI.Z.A.A.A. has no control over men off the competition field and that their behaviour has nothing to do with the governing body. To those who contend in this way let mc commend to their notice Rule 11., Sec. 1, In Rules for Competition, as follows:—" The committee shall reservo to itself the right of refuting any entry, without being bound to assign a reason, or to disqualify a competitor at any time 1C his coarereatlon end conduct is unbecoming. ....'* I think the

italicised words place in the hands of the Association a very proper power—one, too, that will show thoeo inclined to be rowdy that they cannot misbehave with impunity. There are also other rales bearing on the matter. It is very easy to rid the ranks of undesirable persons. However, as I stated when I first wrote on the matter, the Association could be relied upon to deal firmly aud justly with the offenders, and the decision they came to shewed, while they were was prepared to take action in future cases, an inclination to be lenient in thin instance, the first I can call to mind since the formation of the Association. I hope it will be the last.

I cannot elo3e these references without a word or two on a personal matter that concerns myself. Recently I have been the recipient of a eheaf of clippings from Auckland papers. Ac all events, the Auckland postmark was on the envelope which encloted the clippings, which were accompanied by the following brief and unsigned message:—"Vanlter,—Pot these in your pipe and smoke them." Well, I cannot boast of a pipe, so I have not destroyed the extracts as my anonymous correspondent deeires. I hare instead preserved them, amoaget other valued items, ia my scrap book. Some of the Aucklaad writers seem to have been much exercised in their minds over what I wrote in connection with the incidents of the recent Championship Meeting. One is very angry with my remarks on Mr Laurie's suggestion that because Auckland could provide a- big "Kate" the next Australasian Meeting should be held there. The writer etatne that I "urged that important fixture* should be held at Auckland on this account. This will, I believe, be found in the 1H92 file of the Refkrhe tinder • Vaulter'a' name, and each • decided change of views

] in so short »pace of time is hard to account for, though doubtless the writer will be able to explain his inconsistency to my satisfaction." Surely if a man changed his mind after three years consideration no one could complain, if he wore honesr, enough to own up that he had been convinced that he had been on the wrong track. Surely anyone has a right to change his mind. All the same, I never remember urging iv 1892 anything of the sort I am charged with, nor have I changed my views. I may have supported Auckland's claim to a championship meeting being held there. I do not; see the slightest objection to a biz "gate"; on the contrary, it is very useful. But it is no reason why the Australasian Championship Meeting should be held at Auckland more lhan any other centre. That gathering, wherever it is held, U sure to be largely patronised.

Another writer objects strongly to my references to the evils of betting In Auckland as the following extract* from his remarks will chow:—" •' Vaulter * has never, to my knowledge, attended a carnival on the Domain, yet he is continually hurpiug on the subject and reminding his readers on the betting that goes on at the Auckland carntva's—ln tact', he narer loses a chance of giving this ' bugbear' to athletics prominence in hie columns. It all I hear is true, betting on amateur events l> just as rampant In other parts of the colony as In Auckland." This writer ie evidently quite sathfled that Aβ knows all about " Vaulter." Perhapi so. However I may say that unfortunately I was not able to , attend the championship meeting at Auckland. I was also prevented at the last moment from getting away tothe gathering at Napier. At the other fixtures, from their initiation, also the one in Sydney, I have been present, and I may say at none have I witnessed any betting to complain of— certainly nothing like what I learned on the beat authority was oace rampant in Auckland. Indeed the vary Auckland writer I have last referred to says:—" I admit thn.t at one time there was a great amount of money wagered over out amateur meeting*, but the Auckland Club's committee have to a great exteat reduced the evil." TuU I have mentionid before, and I am glad that I have been able to do so.

But the gentleman amongst the Auckland writers who is most annoyed with mo breaks oub into fearful doggret, Iα which he abuses mc moab roundly. The writer eigne his contribution "Kangaroo," and hie effort la printed on pink paper. He winds up his complimentary reference to ;4 Vaulter" with the suggestion that he would be afraid to say to men what he had written of them. "Kangaroo" could never have been a regular reader of my notes. Lone before the establishment of the N.Z.A.A.A. and championship meetings (which were suggested in my notM at the end of December, 1833) I have been writing regularly on amateur athletics and other subjects, and I cannot call to mind any article in which I have descended to personal abuse. Nor do I remember ever having written anything of a-tjane I should have not deemed prudent to cay to the individual referred to. So far M amateur athletics are concerned I b»v* always endeavoured, as In other matter*, to bo impartial. My notes have bSea written in the interests of the epoft generally, and not of any particular cenfci*. So far as Auckland is concerned I maf 'have fouud it necessary to speak ottf plainly, as I have done of other places en* athletes, and I feel that all the attention my recent remarks have received must be proof that they have hit where they were intended to, and have no doubt hw goed effect. If they serve the purpo»e aimed at It will be satisfactory to mc to know that my efforts will nofc have been Iα vain.