Ladies’ Hockey Controversy

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 260, 29 July 1932, Page 13

Ladies’ Hockey Controversy

Sir,— Having been a hockey representative and later a referee, I take the liberty of asking to be allowed space in your columns to express my opinion of the ladies’ hockey match played at Ponrua between the Toa and Hospital teams. I visited the grounds to view the match as I had heard it would be a keen, interesting game. I was not disappointed, and on the day I consider the best team worn The Hospital team displayed good combination, their three goals being excellent work, while the Toa team played energetically, but lacked sting m driving the ball. _ . I was disgusted when I read some of the statements published in your columns as I think a grave injustice has been don® to those young ladies who played in this match, and particularly to the referee who controlled the game. I am in no way connected with any hockey club nor referees’, but in the interests of the gam? I am prompted to express my views or the whole affair. It, no doubt, was urn wise to appoint anyone connected witjs either of the teams to control the gam®, and this was undoubtedly the cause of th® trouble, but, Sir, why was not .an objection raised by the Toa club prior to ths match instead of waiting to make a chopping block of the referee in accounting for their loss of the match. The behaviour of some of the Toa supporters who were on the sideline was disgraceful, and had much to do with feeling running high between players and referee. I cannot agree that the referee ■was unfair, as every time the whistle blew I saw a dear breach, and for the Toa captain to say infringements by the Hospital players were allowed to go without penalty, is one-sided, as many instances, chiefly obstruction, by Toa players were not penalised. On occasions the referee told players of both teams to stand behind the line when a corner hit was taken; this probably was unwise, but it showed the laxity of the team captains in not attending to this matter themselves. Too much whistle spoils any game, and no doubt the referee told the players, to save blowing the whistle as soon as the ball was played. Any independent critic: who saw this match would be at a loss to know why the management committee took such a drastic step as to order the match to be played again. Certainly there was an inqn'ry. but the evidence produced thereat painted the game blacker than .it actually was. The management committee appointed the referee for the match, knowing he was connected with one or the teams, and they should stand by nun (unless, of course, he was guilty of grave injustice), and not throw him overboard to save themselves. What has the referees* association to say in matter; I a®, etc., "FAIRPLAY.” July 24. “I wish to draw the attention of the SPC.A. and all lovers of animals ana hunianitv to the barbarous custom of docking horses,” writes F.V., who adds: “If everv member of the community found in possession of a bob-tailed horse were prosecuted, then in ten years there would not be a docked animal in the country. Horse-copers, of course, insist that a cob must be docked. One assumes that these gentry are too thick-skinned ever to have been stung by a fly—otherwise they would esoen be ip favour ef brandio®-