A RUGBY RULING

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 141, 17 June 1931, Page 13

A RUGBY RULING

REFEREE'S STATEMENT

An explanation given at last night's meeting of the' Wellington Eugby Union's Management Committee regarding the ruling that a player in the Poneke-Hutt game at Athletic Park had not remained passive on the mark is not accepted by the referee (Mr. H. S.'Leith) as being correct. "I am very surprised to Tead of the protest made at last night's meeting by Major King against my action in giving a player a second kick at. goal because an opponnent 'was standing with - hiß arms akimbo instead of by his side,' " said Mr. Leith in a statement to a "Post" reporter to-day. '.'Major King states that he made it his business to ask me if this was the Toason for a second kick at goal being given and he was amazed that <I admitted that it was. I take strong exception to this latter stater nient, and I state emphatically that it is contrary to fact. Major King could not possibly interpret from our conversation over the telephone that I said such a thing. If, as Major 'King is reported to have said, it was simply splitting hairs, any such splitting of hairs ,was done by Major King when ho saw fit to communicate with me by telephone and endeavoured to gain my support for an opinion' that tho player concerned was standing with his hands on his hips. "I do not wish,to go into detail, but I take strong exception to being credited with making a certain admission ■when such is entirely ■ incorrect. The fact is that the player in question beyond doubt contravened that part of the penalty kick rule relative to remaining passive while the kick is being taken, and I, as refereo, ruled in the obvious way, viz.,-gave a second kick. I' would- have failed in my duty if I allowed one side to gain an undue advantage over the.other."