A WRONG IDEA

Evening Star, Issue 19143, 9 January 1926, Page 4

A WRONG IDEA

APPEAL FOR RUGBY The strong hand which referees have been showing in this season’s Rugby football in the Home couih tries "has accounted for a good deal of discussion on the question of ap j peal (says the the Wellington 1 Post New Zealand has had similar esucricuco in the past, and so lar as Rugby football in Wellington #is concerned, the word of tnc referee has been accepted in preference to that_ of the payer in cases of, players being ordered from the field of play. The Wellington Rugby Union’s Management Committee, in dealing with such cases, does not accept evidence other than that given by the player concerned, and the referee. It is on this point of procedure that one English writer (Colonel Philip Trevor) errs in drawing attention, to New Zealand methods of dealing with offending players. Colonel Trevor writes as follows to the London ‘Daily Telegraph”:— “I am informed on what I believe is quite reliable authority that the tiling is done in New Zealand. Suppose I. am playing a match at Wellington on a Saturday afternoon and tho referee, deciding that I ;un guilty of misconduct, orders mo off the field. Well, as a mat tor of procedure, he and I have automatically to appear on the Monday evening before tho Wellington (I think it is called too ‘ District ’) Committee, which is equipped with practically the same powers as our Rugby Union. It is un to me. and the referee to bring with us to that committee witnesses supporting our respective cases. Bo may bring a. down witnesses, and I may perhaps bring only one, or vice versa, I am not suggesting for a moment that the committee will bn consciously affected by the fact that either the referee or I, have only been able to collect nno or two people to, speak on our behalf. Still, in all courts volume of evidence has its value. “1 do not regard this as u, satisfactory method of procedure, though obviously in New Zealand, where there are only a few centres at which important football is played,_ it is more practical to hold an inquiry tlum -it is here. Suppose tho alleged offence occurred at Blackheath when tho ‘ Club ’ were playing a Welsh or Northern team, one of whose members had been sent off the field. Even if you £eould assemble your committee of inquiry on the following Monday evening, it would scarcely be possible to collect the witnesses, and, in my opinion, incidentally, they £would stili bo cx parte witnesses. However, I take tho stronger ground. By merely holding such an inquiry you are severely maiming the authority of the referee, and even if you decide that tho referee was right you do not add to or strengthen his authority. Tin's system may or may not work satisfactorily in Now Zealand • in this country it gets more and more essentia) that the word of the referee should be tho last word so‘far as fact is concerned. Tho tendency to query the referee increases in this country, and indeed tho only official support ha gets lie derives from tho law which says that his decision on a matter _of loots shall bo final. If you decide to subject that decision to appeal it is painfully easy to sea what will happen. Ninety -nine out of a hundred referees will not risk, the chance of a ‘ turn down ’ from a. revising committee. They will just blink at misconduct; that will he for them 'the easier way. You will thus create a paradise for tho ‘ Artful Dodger.’ ”