Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

INTERPRETATIONS OF HOCKEY RULES PUZZLE P.B. SIDE

“I am making no charges against the umpires, for these infringements went unchecked on both sides under the guise of the advantage rule, but it is upsetting to a team to have played under different interpretations of the rules," states the report of the player-manager, Mr. T. T. Turbitt, to the P.B Hockey Association concerning Saturday's game in which the representatives were defeated, two-nil, in the challenge shield game with Wellington on the Wellington ground.

Mr. Turbitt states that the umpires controlled the game well according to their interpretation of the rules. "We differed from them in some respects,” he continues.

"A ball Irom the free hit must not rise from the ground. This is their opinion and we were repeatedly penalised for lifting the ball slightly from the ground in taking the tree hit. The opposing side would have been penalised also.

“Carrying the ball and stopping' with any part of the body went unchecked. Wilful obstruction was allowed'to go.

“In vital decisions we had our fair share of luck for weawon a penalty bully on a faulty decision.” Advantage on Attack In a survey of the game Mr. Turbitt states that the Poverty Bay players were below their usual form. The attack to the circle was penetrative, but the short through passes and shots at goal were faulty. During the first half Wellington hod three shots at goal and one was successful. Poverty Bay had nine shots including three near misses. In the opposing twenty-five Wellington had seven and Poverty Bay 11, this indicating that most of the play took place in the mid-field area with the advantage of the attack in favour of the P.B. side. In the second half the honours were shared more evenly. Wellington had 10 and Poverty Bay 14 shots at goal respectively. In the opposing twentyfive Wellington had 14 and Poverty Bay 20.

Mr. Turbitt describes the Wellington right half, J. Tynan, as the best player on the field and R. Shields as the best Poverty Bay player with G. Cassin as the pick of 'the halves and G. Roos the most prominent forward. The report expresses keen appreciation of the hospitality received from the Wellington officials, players and supporters.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GISH19480901.2.112

Bibliographic details

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22731, 1 September 1948, Page 6

Word Count
375

INTERPRETATIONS OF HOCKEY RULES PUZZLE P.B. SIDE Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22731, 1 September 1948, Page 6

INTERPRETATIONS OF HOCKEY RULES PUZZLE P.B. SIDE Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22731, 1 September 1948, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert