THE REFEREE QUESTION.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 5875, 5 July 1890, Page 3

THE REFEREE QUESTION.

ITO TIIE EDiTOE."|

Sir,—Your editorial remarks last evening will, I am sure, find acceptance with all those who love fair play in the football field, and I am surprised to find that a gentlemen holding the position of seoretary to the H.B. Union should so far forget himself as to endeavor to inflict an injustice on a club by trying to nullify two matches they had fairly "won. That the Pirates won on their merits is acknowledged by all who were present at the matches, and the question of " authorised referees" is merely a quibble to rob them of their victories. If the secretary of the Union is so anxious to see only "authorised" referees act, why did he not raise his objection when the first breach of tho imaginary regulation took place, viz., when the To Aute team defeated the Couniv P Perhaps his partiality for tho College Club may account for his eilenco j on that occasion.—l am, &o , Cbop Kick.

Sib,—Allow me to endorse the remarks contained in your issue of last evening rospeoting the attitude assumed by the Rugby Union towards the Pirates Club. To an impartial observer it is very evident that the success achieved by the club has caused the various dehgates who compose tho Union, to band together to perpetrate an injustice towards a winning club. First, the secretory of the Union questioned the Pirates right to appoint whom they chose as umpire, and now he has capped his contemptible conduct by endeavoring to wrest from them two fairly won matches. A man who would do these actions is certainly unfit for the position of seoretary to the H.B. Rugby Union.—l am, &c, Spoet.

Bnt; —In your issue of yesterday is an editoral note and also a letter fronv a oorrespondent in reference to the question of referees which came up at Thursday's meeting of the Rugby Union, and as both are evidently written under a misapprehension in regard to the facts, kindly permit me to state them. Last year tho time of the Union was largely taken up with vexatious protests in which tho decisions of referees were called into question. To obviate this it was decided this season to appoint an impartial committee which would draw up a list of gentlemen—other than active players—in whose decisions the Union could have perfect confidence, and who must be employed in all matches in which they are available. The committee appointed were Messrs Morrison, A. F. Kennedy, Goro, and Gibbons, and tho list drawn up by them was absolutely apart from any club basis. This list was published on tho 11 th June, and has boen in foice for the few matches played since that date. The Pirates Club Committoo placed itself in the wrong by taking tho list of the Union and dividiug it upon a *' Club " basis, and then stating that in future those whom they considered in any way connected with certain cluba they would not agree to as referees in matches with those clubs. This led to a practical deadlock in the matter of referees for the two Napier-Pirates matches, aud though referees whose names appeared on tho Union authorised list of twentythree could have been easily obtained on the day before, two gentlemen against whom no personal objection could be urged, but whose names were not upon the list referred to, were appointed. The Union would have certainly failed in its duty had it allowed this open over-riding of its own regulations. Either thore was a rule or

there was not, if there was ono it ehould be obeyed. When, therefore, a ruling in connection with one of the matches was asked for, I insisted on the chairman ruling as to whether under tho circumstances the match had any status as a club match, with the result which you alroady know. There was no vote of tho Union on the subject as you appear to think, and in fact my view of tho question was opposed by all the delegates, as the Napier Club, having been fairly boaten, its delegates could not honorably attempt to gain any advantage from a breach of the rules to whioh they had themselves been a party. Tho Chairman was asked tortile as to the existence of a law and its application, and ho did so. There was no

" attempt to do an injustice to the leading team," as tho Napier team was equally culpable in consenting to the referees nominated, and had they won either of the matches I would still have taken the action I did, as I consider that no c!ub has any right to divido and object to on a club basis a list of referees which has been adopted by

tho Union without any reference to such a busis. The leading members of tho Pirates Club haro too much good sense to adopt any suggestion for severing their connec-

tion with the Union. Such an action, as you suggest, would be childish, and would moreover ent them off from football both here and elsewhere, and as to tho accusations of unfairness, they are sufh'ciently met by the announcement which you made in tho same issue that Mr Logan and myself intend to move that as this was the first case under the operation of the iulo, and both clubs were equally oulpable, the matches remain as played. Meantime my action will have the effect I dosired and lead to a better observance of Union regulations —I am, &c, E. D. Hobbs. [We never for a moment supposed there was a vote, but we knew there Teas a decision, and we characterised the matter as catchy.—Ed. D.T.]