Newspapers Attacked Over Rugby Incident

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28573, 30 April 1958, Page 14

Newspapers Attacked Over Rugby Incident

Statements made in leading articles and articles which have appeared in both Christchurch newspapers last week and this week on the incident at Rugby Park on April 19 in which a High School Old Boys’ player, A. Pearce, was injured, were described by Mr C. H. McPhail as “hogwash,” “ballyhoo” and “deplorable” last evening. He made these criticisms at a meeting of the Canterbury Rugby Union’s management committee, at which the incident was again discussed.

There were only four speakers. The president (Mr R. W. Blazey), opened the discussion when he presented a statement prepared by a “sub-committee.” The statement reads:—

“After reading an article in *The Press’ today headed ‘lncident at Rugby Park,’ the Canterbury Rugby Football Union is of the opinion that further condemnatory articles written in this strain are unfair and it would appear that the whole series has tended rather to do grave disservice to Rugby Football. “If the allegations had been supported by reliable corroborative evidence the union could have perhaps received them in an entirely different manner.

“One of the main laws in the rule book on Rugby Football is that the referee is the sole judge of fact. In this particular incident, which involved Alan Pearce, of the High School Old Boys’ Club, the referee has stated what occurred and this is borne out by touch judges and members of the union who were present. “Further, in our own knowledge, Pearce does not believe he was deliberately kicked and is certain that the injury was purely accidental.

“We, the executive of the Canterbury Rugby Football Union, can only be guided by the facts as presented to us. We also have full confidence in . our referees and where they take action against any player for illegal tactics on the field of play, they know they have- our full support. '‘Now, does any other member wish to make any further observations on this matter?” asked Mr R. W. Blazey. Other Incident “I think we well know there should be some discussion,” said Mr H. C. Blazey. “I was not present but I think the referee told the truth. He is a senior referee and one of our most experienced referees. There is one comment in ‘The Press’ to which I take exception. The writer allied the Rugby Park incident with another last year and said that, according to spectators, a player was deliberately kicked and suffered serious injury. That player was a member of my own club. “I remember the match and the incident in which he was injured. In my opinion he was not deliberately kicked. He suffered his injury when another player fell upon him but it was definitely not deliberate,” said Mr Blazey. “Let us look at this matter in the order of events,” said Mr C. H. McPhail. “Saturday night's : paper did not report the matter, I Monday morning’s paper carried : the banner condemning the union ■ for not Stamping out rough play j and applying pressure to the ’ union. Then on the Monday night the other paper joined in. On ; Tuesday morning were came the - exhortation that someone’s head ■ must roll. ; “At its meeting on the Tuesday night the union issued a state- i ment and this was condemned out i of hand An an editorial,” said Mr i McPhaiL “I would Say that editorial was a lot of hogwash. < Because we are not prepared tod submit to pressure by the papers ‘ we are criticised. 1 ‘‘l think referees in the past ] have had our full support, and ‘ we as administrators can only s administer along the lines we think best for the game,” said Mr McPhidl. ‘‘Finger-Shaking” After quoting from an article • in ‘‘The Press” which mentioned . that a ‘‘leading administrator.” when asked to comment on the incident mentioned that the referee “shook his finger,” Mr McPhail asked: “Who is this leading administrator who was asked to comment? And this fingershaking? The finger-shaking has been interpreted by the reporter to mean something. But that is not fact”

Mr McPhail quoted the last paragraph from an article in “The Press” yesterday morning suggesting that the committee reopen the incident and close it openly and publicly and say quite frankly that it would give referees every support in cleaning up the game. “What have we done?” Mr McPhail asked. “We have looked into the matter and all this ballyhoo going on is just to upset something that has been well run by the union in the past. For the papers to rush in and print this is deplorable.” - A statement by the referees association on the report of the referee published in “The Press” on April 24 and commented on in an article published on April 26,

was made by the referees’ delegate (Mr B. J. Drake?. [The paragraph referred to by Mr Drake dealt with the laws under which the referees were obliged to make a report to the union. The comment on this paragraph was a question which asked if the union could require referees to report any important matter.] Two Laws “The statement given to the papers included a reference to two laws under which referees automatically have to make reports,” said Mr Drake. “It was not intended to be an exhaustive statement as to whether a report could be made in other circumstances. No referee is going to make a report because a paper sees fit to ‘glamorise’ an incident,” he said. He then listed several other laws under which referees could be asked to make reports. “This union did not see fit last week to call, for a report from the referee,” he said. “I would like to say this: over the years we have had very good support from the reporters and I would say that we have been on a very friendly basis with them although at times we haven’t seen eye to eye with them on some things,” said Mr McPhail. “But I would say that we have never criticised the papers’ reports and yet on occasions we have Ijeen shot at.

“Reporters have done a good job, but the editors have cut down reports until there is practically nothing. They have been whittled down until a boy of 12 could have written them,” he said. He listed one instance of a report of a match last Saturday. “It seems that we are being criticised and taken to task because the papers think some one’s head should roll.” The statement read by Mr R. W Blazey was then approved.