Hutt L.T.A. Criticises Referee Incident

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30054, 12 February 1963, Page 15

Hutt L.T.A. Criticises Referee Incident

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, February 11. The Hutt Valley Lawn Tennis Association has criticised the actions of the referee, Mr A. B. McCallum, and statements attributed to the chairman of the New Zealand association’s management committee, Mr F. S. Ramson, concerning the disciplining of Miss E. Cavaye in the recent under-19 junior girls’ final at Christchurch. Miss Cavaye was disciplined when she was leading 5-4 in the first set of the final and after the referee spoke to her she won but one game in the remainder of the match.

The Hutt association alleges victimisation of Miss Cavaye and “deplores” Mr Ramson's support of the tournament referee in the matter. (The actions of the referee were subsequently supported by Mr Ramson.) The association, through its president, Mr L. B. Mitchell, tonight issued a statement and copies of letters written to the Canterbury and New Zealand associations on the subject Indication to Public “While my association is reluctant to give any further publicity to the incident of the under-19 girls’ singles final of the New Zealand junior lawn tennis championships, it feels, in fairness to Miss Cavaye, that releasing correspondence in connexion with this to the press is the only indication we can give the public that she has the Hutt association’s backing,” says the statement “This is not the only occasion that New Zeeland tennis on a national level has been subject to officials acting outside their rules, and it is no wonder that many players are now examining the temperaments of their officials who are now showing that power tennis is not just for the court.

“The great majority of the people who play tennis are by no means champions, they play the sport for recreation and enjoyment and it is their affiliation fees that provide the funds for administrating the game. These people are certainly entitled to wonder just what goes on,” it says.

In its letter to the New Zealand association, the Hutt Valley association says it took strong exception to the statement by Mt Ramson in connexion with the incident. “Partisanship”

Mir Ramson had been reported as saying that he did not think the intenruiption would have made any difference to the final result. The letter says: “My association views that statement as partisanship in its worst form. It may be further criticised upon the grounds

that Mr Ramson's great ability in many fields hardly qualifies him to be able to forecast the result of a tenhis match.” Mr Ramson had been also reported as saying that it was unfair to blame or criticise the referee for doing

what was hj duty. “We request the New Zealand association to point to the appropriate sections of their rules or regulations vetting in the referee the power and the duty which Mr Ranwon now claim* for him.” say* the letter.

“No complaint was mad* against Miss Cavaye by her opponent or by the umpire in charge of the match. The standard of play that She had produced up tekl the time of this incident and her deterioration from that point left no doubt in the minds of spectator* that the incident had a most unfortunate effect upon the outcome of the maitoh.

“It is to be deplored that the chairman of the management committee should publicly support the action of a referee acting outside hi* jurisdiction and authority. "Personally Concerned'’ "The use of the plural ’we’ in Mr Ramson's statement—'We have asked and asked that this sort of display be controlled, and we cannot accept it. especially when a game such as Saturday's is being televised' — leads to the very obvious conclusion that Mr Ramson was personally concerned in the incident,” says the letter. The letter to Canterbury outlines the position as the Hutt association sees it and says: “My association has carefully considered the rules of the N.Z.L.T.A. and the handbook issued by the Umpires’ Association with the approval of the N.Z.L.T.A., and can find no legal authority for the action of the referee.

“The association Is advised that the referee has no power

whatever to Initiate any action against a player. It is accordingly clear, beyond doubt, that Mr McCallum’s entry on to the court was in breach of his duties. His unwarranted action as far as my association has been able to ascertain is unprecedented and demands an explanation. Questions "My association hopes that you will be able to reply to the following questions: (a) Do any of the officials of your association, particularly the umpire controlling the match, consider Miss Cavaye’s actions required a rebuke from any person? (b> Did the umpire request the referee to intervene? (c) Did Miss Terry request the umpire to take action? (d) Was the action of the referee carried out on his own volition or was he prompted or encouraged by any other person? (e) Does your association on future occasions, intend to support this referee as a competent official? “My association is satisfied that Miss Cavaye was the subject of victimisation and. whilst it is not suggested that she or any other player is always free from a display of temperament, our investigations lead us to the firm conclusion that on this occasion Miss Cavaye’s actions were beyond reproach and that the referees’ action was not only unjustified by the laws of tennis but also by the facts of the case.”