COACH REPLIES: Sentence Vicious Discrimination

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30530, 27 August 1964, Page 15

COACH REPLIES: Sentence Vicious Discrimination

The coach of the University team, Mr C. V. Walter, comments:—

If the statement of the umpires is correctly reported, it is a misrepresentation of the whole situation. It is all the more unfortunate, therefore, that neither Keith Thomson nor myself have been given the opportunity of explaining our version of the situation, and it ill becomes an administrative body that it should be prepared to ignore its own rules in order to act as prosecutor, jury and judge. The Canterbury Hockey Association did not advise Thomson of the accusation against him nor of the fact that he was required to appear before the Judiciary Committee, and took action without giving him a chance to present his case.

Such procedure is unethical and, as a former chairman of the C.H.A. Judiciary Committee, I deplore the present methods. Thomson’s attitude was inspired by the same reactions as mine, his team’s coach. I abhor the barging and obstruction which is the direct cause of so much rough play in hockey, and I protested

about the methods, not the tactics, of certain players on the field.

I can assure the Canterbury Hockey Association that there is no likelihood of any change in my hostility towards dirty play, and no covert threat of that body will influence me in this matter. I am surprised that the Canterbury Hockey Association is at such pains to belittle this attitude. It does not auger well for the game’s immediate future. I note that Thomson is accused of voicing dissent at a decision while he was off the field. He did not do anything of the sort.. What he said appears to be completely misunderstood, mistakenly I hope. That he should have been accused, tried and sentenced in his absence, and that the sentence is so severe, suggests an attitude of vicious discrimination towards him. What sort of administration is this?