RIGHT TO VOTE

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 April 1946, Page 4

RIGHT TO VOTE

REFEREE ON RUGBY LEAGUE COMMITTEE QUESTION OF CONSTITUTION The question whether the delegate of the Referees’ Association on the management Committee of the West Coast Rugby League should have a vote at the meeting was discussed by the management committee at its weekly meeting last evening. This followed a report on the annual meeting of the association made by the delegate, Mr. J. Griffen. . Mr. Griffen pointed out that the association had decided to ask the committee that when the constitution was revised provision be made for the referees’ delegate to have a vote. If. this was not done, he added, _ it really was not worth while his being present. ~ The chairman, Mr. W. Meates, said the subject had been a bone of contention for many years. About five years ago, it had been unanimously decided at a meeting of club delegates that the referees’ delegate be given the right to vote. “Will that motion then be observed until the constitution is altered, asked Mr. Griffen. “I assure members that I had no ulterior motive in disclosing that the delegate was not entitled to a vote, stated the Secretary, Mr. T. F. McKenzie, who explained that the constitution had to be revised and these matters had to be raised before they could be corrected. Minutes in the books were not sufficient to permit the delegate to have a vote, he added. There had to be a notice of motion and it had to be registered. If the league worked on any rule other than that under the constitution it was liable to a fine. Considering the at T titude of the clubs and the management committee, he considered it likely that the delegate would eventually receive a vote.

The chairman pointed out that a former president of the league a number of years ago had undertaken to have the constitution altered to allow a vote to be obtained, but nothing had been done.

The subject was not pursued, but Mr. Griffen exercised voting power during the remainder of the meeting.

Referee’s Nomination. In reference to the report of the referees’ meeting in which it was stated that the name of the referee selected for nomination for the North v. South fixture had not been forwarded to the North Island owing to a misunderstanding between the secretaries of the association and the league, Mr. McKenzie stated that he had had nothing to do with the matter. The whole of the arangements should have been made by the secretary of the association. Mr, Griffen pointed out that the secretary of the association and other members thought that the advice would be sent on by Mr. McKenzie. They knew now that the responsibility was that of the association. He pointed out that he had also been concerned in the affair, it having been alleged in some quarters that he had not forwarded the name because he and another man had not been in the ballot. That was a childish suggestion and had caused a lot of trouble. 111-feeling Alleged. “There seemed to be a little illfeeling among referees last year regarding the number taking first grade matches,” said Mr. C. Stone. “Am I to understand that when a referee has controlled one representative match, he is ineligible for another until all eligible referees have had a representative match? Have not we the right to see that referees get a fair spin? The chairman said that this year there was a sole selector of referees. The league now had nothing to do with the referees. The secretary said that the rule was that a referee who has had a representative match could not submit his name for another until all eligible referees had had a match. “I probably won’t get another for about 15 years,” he commented. “The rule was stupid in the first place.” Mr. J. Kidd agreed that the rule would have to be rescinded. It was the silliest rule the association had ever had. Appointment of Referees. The chairman pointed out that while the management committee was elected to administer the code, it had no say now in the appointment of the men to control its games. “That is what I have been saying,” said the secretary. “The referees want a say in our affairs but we have none in theirs.”

“What is the object of our coming along here as a managementcommittee if we are to be saddled with any old referee for our games?” asked the chairman.

“We should shake hands with ourselves,” commented Mr. J. Kidd. The secretary said that the referees’ selector was going to grade the referees—senior referees only for senior gams. Members agreed that the system was desirable. “It’s their head-ache,” commented the chairman.