Softball ASSOCIATION REPEATS DEMAND FOR APOLOGY

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29075, 11 December 1959, Page 6

Softball ASSOCIATION REPEATS DEMAND FOR APOLOGY

The Canterbury Softball Association’s executive remains adamant in its demand for an apology from the Richmond Club to the umpire of its game against the Papanui club on November 14. This is in spite of an approach from members of the Richmond team accused of constant heckling and personal attacks on the umpire during the game.

At the special meeting of the executive members of the Richmond senior men’s team claimed that heckling was at a minimum during the game and the umpire’s rulings showed his bias against their team.

Mr A. Tongue, president of the Canterbury Softball Association, said that the umpire (Mr C. Bayford) was only one of the large number of players used to umpire games because, of the shortage of umpires.

Mr, Tongue said he admitted that the standard of umpiring in the province was not good but lack of support from the clubs was the main cause and he considered teams were getting the standard of umpiring they were entitled to.

"One hundred and fifty pamphlets were distributed recently at Kagley Park in an effort to draw recruits to the Umpires' Association and these drew only 14 replies. No Umpires’ Association

“Canterbury now has no Umpires’ Association and the Softball Association has been forced to call upon players to perform this task, with penalties being levied on clubs not supplying umpires,” said Mr Tongue. “There are only two non-playing

umpires in Christchurch and with no check on the players being used as umpires for ability or experience, it is no wonder the standard is low.” Members of the Richmond team made their allegations about the umpire who then asked leave to reply. Mr Bayford said he had not come to the meeting to defend himself but with so many accusations he felt forced to reiterate his former charges of misconduct by the Richmond players. A letter was received at the meeting from the base umpire of the game (Lieutenant Lambert) who was unable to be present because of his transfer from Christchurch and in it he said that “from the first ball of the game abuse was directed at the umpire and at the end of the game the umpire was called names.”

The umpire’s calls were fair and in his long experience in the game he had not encountered such conduct and bad feeling, the letter said.

After the withdrawal of the Richmond delegation it was announced that an apology to the umpire had been received from A. Ballantyne and that his suspension from the game was lifted. After a long debate it was resolved by the meeting that the allegations of biased umpiring were without foundation.

A motion, “That a letter he sent to the Richmond Club stating that actions such as were engaged in by their club members on November 14 would not be tolerated in future” was defeated and the former motion was passed with dissenting voice*.