A POINT IN DISPUTE.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9606, 22 December 1896, Page 3

A POINT IN DISPUTE.

[By VATTT/rBR.] Last week I stated that a question had arisen in Sydney as to whether a winner of a. walking event having put op a record after bsing once oautioned by the judge, was entitled to have it recognised by the authorities. The claim for the record came before the Counoil ot the N.S.W.A.A., when the voting was equal for and against, bat tha chairman, with the permission of the delegate., reserved his casting vote until the next meeting of the Council. I received a communication from the chairman of ihe mooting requesting that I should give my views on the matter, and U it was public property I referred to it briefly in last issue. The point is a very interesting one to aU who follow athletics and as promised I return to the subjeot again. Before giving my views, it will be as well to give the N.S.VV. A.A.A.'s rule on the matter. It reads thus:-— The judges of walking shall have power to determine the fairness or unfairness ot walking, and any one of them (there are three) may disqualify a, competitor, and his decision shall be final and without appeal. In case of a competitor " lifting " during the race one caution will lie allowed from any ono of the three judge* of w*lking-, and hh verdict shall be final. A second e-.u1.-n will disqualify. No caution will b« allowed in the last lap, but disqualification Will instantly ensue. The following is a copy of my letter to Sydney:—"l say, unhesitatingly, that there seems no reason to me why Barrett should not be awarded his reoord for the mile. If he walked unfairly your judge or judges should not have passed him. They did so, however, he was declared the winner, and no doubt received the prize. How then can yon overrule your officials (judges). Their decision ia final and without appeal. Barrett received one caution, not two, which, according to your rule, disqualify. You say two records of Goodwin's were not allowed owing to cautions being administered. One case, that of the three miles, is not on all fours with Barrett's, for I understand Goodwin reoeived two cautions, and to my mind should not have been allowed to finish. In this colony a disqualified competitor must leave the track at once. Withholding Goodwin's two-mile record was wrong for the reasons applying to Barrett's case. I may say that after I had made up my mind on the matter, I submitted it during a spell in the New Zealand v. Australia cricket matoh to Messrs Wilding (one of our best judges and athletio authorities, as you know) and L. A. Caff. The former, without knowing my views, gave his opinion, whioh is quite in aocord with my own. The latter agreed, but thought there might be cases where incompetent judges were acting, and, under such circumstances, if the authorities were satisfied that a man put up a record by unfair walking, what then? I agree that there is something in the point raised, but there is no rule dealing with it. At least we have none, and, ours are muoh the same as yours and those in f orce in England and America. It certainly opens the question as to the advisability or otherwise of providing a rule to cover suoh point. But for championship meetings at least competent judges should be easily obtainable. Sturgess, when putting up records on October 3rd, was cautioned, but from all I have read in the English papers there i. nothing that leads me to suspect that his reoord will not be passed. To conolude on the question, I contend'-that the one caution received by Barrett should not debar him from the oredit of the record, and if everything else was in order it should be passed by the governing-body. I would suggest that a case be stated for the English Association." Since the original of the above was posted away the following by "Harrier," the athletio contributor to The Australasian, is to hand:— * • ■ Though framed in different language, the rule is practically the same in all the colonies. It will be seen that a judge may distinguish the quality of the offence. He may caution or may disqualify. Of course, with lenient judges, a man may be only oautioned when he is unmistakably "mixing," as it is termed, or even running "for a few Bteps, but this could hardly happen in a championship walk, before, it must be as.umed, competent and impartial judges. And, even if it did, the deoision of the judge is final and without appeal. Now, there is at times, as all judges know, considerable difficulty in determining whether a walker's gait is absolutely fair, and I take it that the power to caution is intended to be need in cases where a judge is not satisfied with « man's gait, but would not go so far as to say he was absolutely mixing it or running. Now the. man may have been walking .airly, though peculiarly, for judges may err, and unless the judge thinks it necessary to again caution, he is given, and rightly given, the benefit of the doubt. Having, in the case under notice, placed Barrett first and awarded him the prize' in proper accordance with the rules, it seems to me contradictory to refuse him the record, provided, of course, the other reoord requirements as to time, track, wind, Ac, are accepted as satisfactory. As Barrett has since beaten the time in Victoria, Ido not suppose he minds very muoh whioh way the verdict goes, but nevertheless I consider he is entitled io the reoord. The incident is a satisfactory proof of the cave with which applications for records are dealt with in New South Waleß, and should,go far to satisfy sometimes sceptical outsiders that their records are to be relied on. The Sydney Referee says:—"We believe authorities in the other colonies " have been asked to express their views -. on the subjeot, and rightly so. In our opinion, according to the rules governing the raoe, Barrett, under the circumstances of the caution received, is entitled to the figures, and we are further of the opinion that Goodwin's two miles record, if the trhek was of correot measurement and the timekeepers agreed, should, under the circumstances of the case, also havo been recognised in 1894; The same paper says:—When .Oood,y,h_'_s case was submitted to a prominent American authority for an expression of opinion, the authority in question could find no similar case having occurred in the States, and gave it as his opinion that it developed an interesting point. The authority (Mr W. B. Curtis, then president of the A.A.A. of the United States) said:—" It could not happen in America. . . . We have bnt one judge of walking. .. . . We have no rule covering the point. . .. . Some of our reoord holders may have been oautioned during the performances for which they hold accepted records. ... I de not remember any such cose, but it would not seem to me improbable, and, probably they would hot a-tract attention or be discussed. . . . I think onr record committee would consider the character of the offence, and whether the offender -WM unmistakably mixing or only doing what some judges would pass and others would not." In Barrett's ease the offence occurred daring a sprint of a few yards, and otherwise his style, passed throughout by two judges, wonld have been accepted by all throe.