THE HEFTY BLOW.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1509, 3 August 1912, Page 12

THE HEFTY BLOW.

'[■■ PUNCHED.HOME BY MR. SAMPSON. !" Last w.eek, "Mercury" made.some Te- ': ference to'some adverse-criticism of Mr. T. W. Sampson's refereeing. at.the recent, ; : New Zealand championships 'appearing in j. tho "Canterbury Times." In this week's ;■"■ issuo appears,a letter, from Mr. Sampson i himself, in answer to the criticism, in which he wields a hefty, cudgel on his own behalf. The Letter. " - ' " Sir,—"You consider yourself good judges, ;. , yet none of,you can referee a contest" is i the form, of ■ rebuke used on one occasion .."' by the late Dr.' Napier M'Lean to a small ' . but noisy section of'the audience who manifested their disapproval of his deci- [ sion as a referee.'" -< '■ [ As_ referee in the recent New Zealand championships at Wellington, I quote the above reminiscence as a preface to my l, reply to the criticism levelled at me by ;—.your correspondent in your last-issue, ' Which criticism was not justified by facts and appears to be due to what Thomas Bracken termed a "stunted vision." ' Originally I was appointed as one of the judges, and had the person or persons constituting tho council controlling boxing in the Dominion been alive to his. or - their responsibilities the gentleman ap- ! pointed by the council as referee, would have been notified that the tournament '.commenced on Monday instead' ■ jf.cu Tuesday. This no doubt was'an'over- ! eight, and no act of discourtesy to Mr. Bush.-. As it was,; that gentleman did not , arrive on Monday, and the association j ; askedimo to act as referee. Whilo 1 aid . not seek, the position, lof course felt honoured at- the choice.

!'The.Limit,of Mediocrity In Criticism," The fact, as admitted by your correspondent, " that I : did disqualify several competitors for the offences enumerated is evidence that I was fully alive to my .responsibilities. It is insinuated that I overlooked offences in other instances. It appears/to me that the.limit of medio-, frity in criticism is reached when a. genBral statement of incompetence is levelled Hvhen the.only chance 1 have of defending myself is by having specific cases jnontioned. Your correspondent might arectify his.' omission in this respect. The ■honour attaching to the position of fef,eree was-.'thrust on me at the last moment, but to suggest that I should feel 'shorn of-authority , because. of. the tfro judges is.utter nonsense. The fact of being assisted by two judges may relieve pne of a little of the anxiety which necessarily enters.into the duties of a referee Sn his desire, to give equitable (if not ;popular) decisions, but it_ does not re■iieve one of the responsibilities, and I ■have not yet'felt less confidence in the 'ring because the events are for champion-, ships. I venture to say that the competitors fully appreciated my strict inter-, pretation of the rules, and further it may bo remarked that a feature of the three nights was the absence of any controversy between the referee and the audience.

The Count;.;-/":,/': The/writer, of your no(«3 states that the. "couiit''.',wiis.ihado too. quickly, but fails ;to : 'say.''how'lio arrives at this conclusion. -Did he have his watch in his hand all through waiting fora man to go down, or is it his opinion of counting seconds as against mine? . For.his information I may say that one of the timekeepers checked my count repeatedly, and on being shown" the.criticism'of.your cor-' •respondent, stated;that the timing was as noar correct.as could be. Ido not know that I anl- particularly . susceptible to criticism, but I abhor the principle appertaining/to street corner critics, whoso claim maj' be a loud voice, but whose arguments seldom rise above the bald statement ' that "the referee was wrong." If the judges erred, as your critics say they did, why not say in what instances the decisions should have been reversed? Tlie same applies to the winners of the special medals for scientific display (young Owens hails from Westport, not from "Wellington, as your correspondent states). Jf Owens and Leary did not win them, then who did?—l am, etc., ... T. SAMPSON. The Small Counter-Punch....; Tho editorial comment on the above runs simply: "Tho attention of our Wellington correspondent, will bo drawn to Mr; Sampson's comments—Ed. 'Canterbury Tunis','"