A SOCCER INCIDENT

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 42, 18 August 1922, Page 5

A SOCCER INCIDENT

ONE SUSPENSION CONFIRMED

M'ARTHUR'S APPEAL ALLOWED

The trouble which occurred during the Thistle Waterside match on the Basin Reserve on 29fch July in the ordering otf the field of D Ferguson, a Water side player, for striking a Thistle man, N M Arthur, wa> discussed again last evening by the Council of the N Z F A , following upon the appeal of Ferguson I against the alleged seventy of the pun ishinent imposed b> the Wellington Football Association till the end of I 1923, and also M Arthur's appeal | against his suspension during the re mainder of the present season Mi C E Fordham was in the chair A gieat deal of correspondence was formally 'received, and the council then proceeded *■} analyse the evidence'and to discuss the mannei in which Ferguson's case was dealt with, the first question being whether the local association had acted rightly m dechnipg" to allow the player to call evidence Mr R V Walls maintained that the Wellington Football Association hald power under Rule 9of its byfaws to interpret its rules as it considered right, I and to conduct the hearing of the case lin such manner as \t thought fit, while Rule 15 hid downl "The Management I Committee «hall have power to suspend for such tune as it thinks fit any club, 1 team, player, official, member, or person, who shall be guilty 'of (a) a breach of any bylaw or rule of the association, (b) objectionable or improper behaviour during or in connection with any match under the auspices of the association, id) any such other acts as in the opinion of the Management Committee shall constitute misconduct" •' It was specifically laid\down by Rule 9 that the association could conduct its I inquiries as it considered fit and proper, and might call or decline to caD wit ' I'nesses, said Mr .Walls, and he consid- ' ened that the procedure followed had I been in thorough accord with the rules. The Chairman concurred, and Mr A Menzies then moved that the players' appeal should be dismissed. - , /Mr Ht J Graces expressed the opinion that .the punishment imposed was it) no wise severe in view o| the fact that Ferguson did not strike M'Arthur as he (Ferguson) stood, but took two steps towards the Thistle man/before delivering the blow The motion was carried unanimously ' M'Arthur's appeal, which was based mainly on the contention that he was not rightly convicted since he had bad no charge laid against him,, was then considered. In addition to bis contention that a wrong piocedure had been followed by the WF A, M'Arthur maintained that he had not been guilty of misconduct „ , The powers of, the Management Committee of the WF A under Rule 15, said Mr. Walls, wag exceedingly wide, and rightly so, for the committee was charged i with the control of the game 1 The attitude taken up by the WFA, Ihe maintained, had been in entire accord with the rules of the association, which in the first place had been approved by the N.ZF.A, and'must, therefore,'be upheld by the New Zea I land body. In his opinion, there was nothing in the bylaws to state that M'- | Arthur should necessarily have been called to answer a charge before being | judged by the committee. Mr Menzies expressed the opinion that the referee was surely the best man to judge an incident, and the referee had laid no charge against M'Arthur.' On the other hand, had M'Arthur provoked Ferguson, as members of the WFA had stated, then surely' he ,was the worse offender and should have beenf treated, at- least, at severely as the man he had provoked * f The whole question, said Mr Graves, was as to whether M'Arthur had been given a fair trial according to the rules, whether, he had been guilty of miscon duct or not Personally, he did not consider that the player had been given an opportunity to make out a case He therefore moved that the appeal should be allowed on the grounds (a) that M' Arthur had been called to the meeting of the WFA. m connection with a charge against Ferguson only; (b) tLat the ,W F A had not acted in accord with Rule 15 and called upon M'Arthur or his, club to answer a charge, and that accordingly, M'Arthur did not take the oppoitumty of protecting himself as he would have done if he had known that a charge was being laid against him, and (c) that under Rule 22 of the New Zealand body, a decision of an affiliated association could only be varied or reversed, and could not be leferred back to the local body,' ' The motion was carried by five votes to four. ' ' M'Arthur is therefore free to play again this season.