TARANAKI RUGBY UNION.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 27 June 1924, Page 5

TARANAKI RUGBY UNION.

LAWS INFRINGED. OFFENDERS PENALISED. A meeting of the management committee of the Taranaki Rugby Union was held at Stratford last evening, when a lengthy sitting was occupied in hearing the evidence relating to the ordering off of several players during games under the union’s jurisdiction, lhe union’s judgment was pronounced in each only after the fullest inquiry into the circumstances. There were present: Messrs J. McLeod (chairman). IV. B. Fearon (president), IV. A. Guv, A. (). Casey, A. F. Nielson, F. Whyte, B. Saunders, A. it. - Davis, J. Goodwin, and the secretary (S. E. Nielson). The chairman referred to the match for July 5 between Wanganui and Taranaki, at Haivera, and stated that the Wanganui Union liad advised that they ivere unable to arrange to send a team on that date. —It was decided that the i club game between Stratford and Haivera be played at Hawera on July 5 as a special show fixture, the sum of £35 from the gate takings to go to the pool between the clubs and the remainder to go to the union. REFEREE’S REPORT. A report was received from Mr. E. Andrews, referee in the Okaiawa-Ingle-ivood match on June 21. explaining the circumstances ivliich led up to" the ordering off of the Roberts brothers and Coutts leaving the field-. The report stated that B: Roberts had disputed a pass forward decision, had passed offensive remarks, and, ivhen ordered off. had tried to call his ! team off also; that R. Roberts had also disputed the decision and had used offensive remarks, and that when R-. Coutts had questioned a try he (the referee) had ivarned him, but as Coutts continued to argue he had asked him if he wanted to go off also. Coutts had said he would go off, and did so THE PLAYERS’ EVIDENCE. Mr. Coutts was called in to the meeting, the referee’s report being read to him. He stated that, as captain of the Inglewood team, lie had put a question to the referee regarding what he thought had been offside play-’by ah Okaiawa player, but he had not intended to dispute the referee’s decision in awarding the try which-had just been scored. This ivas after the Rolierts brothers had been ordered off. The referee had evidently objected to the question, and had asked him if- he n isned to go off also. He then intimated that if he had to go off he had better do so right aivav, and the referee had replied: “Well, go on, then.” Taking this as tantamount to an order to go off he had then left the field. Tn reply- to a question Mr. Andrews said . Coutts’ first question related to off-side play. • Coutts had not given any trouble prior to this, though a considerable amountill-fegling was prevalent. He contended that Coutts had definitely disputed the try. His remarks bad, been intended only as a warning to Coutts, who had not been ordered off. ‘ Mr. B. Roberts, who ivas then called, stated that the referee’s rulings had been incorrect, and instanced cases where he considered they had been at fault. The referee had ivarned the speaker for allegedly kicking a player, but the kick had been delivered at the ball, which the player had held under his arm. Though the referee ivas too far away to see with certainty whether the player had been kicked, he had warned the speaker. At a later stage he had been ordered off for questioning the referee regarding the ruling of a pass forward when a trv for Okaiawa had appeared almost certain. He had not tried to call the Okaiaiva team off the field, and denied that he had used the expressions alleged by the referee. He was captain of the Okaiaiva team, and m that capacity claimed the right to appeal to the referee. He further stated that the referee was “rattled” and had lost the confidence of the players, who were dissatisfied with his ridings. Mr. F. Atkin substantiated the statements made by Roberts, with the exception that he considered the referee had controlled the game fairlv well until the trouble had started, when the latter had appeared to become “rattled” and was faulty in his rulings. The speaker had rightly questioned the forward pass ruling referred to. as the some 30 yards from the ball at the time; ,No invitation had been giveh by B. Roberts or anyone else to the team to walk off. though he had heard R. Roberts say that thev should do so. Mr. J). Johnston stated lie had not heard the remarks alleged to have been made by R. Roberts, and regarding the forward ,-pass, ruling, thought that the ieteree was not close enomili to judge accurately. The chairman read the referee’s report concerning R. Roberts, and as that player was unable to be present to reply, asked if - the other plavers could throw any light on the matter.— B. Roberts denied the allegation.—F. Atkins stated that a portion of the ieport was correct-. R. Roberts had questioned a ruling of the referee, but on the field had not used the offensive and threatening remarks alleged. PENALTIES A WAR DEI). Reviewing Coutts' ease, the chairman said the whole question was whether the situation had arisen from a misunderstanding or not. Apparently .the player, as captain of his team, haa merely directed a question which the referee had construed as a direct disputation of the decision. Mr Whyte concurred in the chairman’s opinion. The chairman also remarked that the referee had not handled the situation as well as he might have done. Mr -Casey moved that Coutts be made to stand for two playing Saturdays. Air Papps considered the punishment too light, and moved as an amendment that it be four playing Saturdays. The amendment was negatived, and rile original motion carried. Regarding B. and R. Roberts’ cases, the chairman said rhst they had to take the view that nothing .justified ..■layers in disputing the referee’s decisions. With reference to the alleged attempt of B. Roberts to call the team off, he thought-, in view of the evidence given by Mr Atkin that the referee had probably been mistaken. Mr Casey also thought, that the referee may have been confused. He moved that the two players, B. and R. Roberts, be made to stand down for one playing Saturday. Air Whyte moved as an amendment that it be four plaviiig Saturdays.— This amendment was lost. A further amendment proposed by the chairman, that Hie term be two playing Saturdays, defeated the original motion, ami, on being put as the motion, was carried. OTHER CASES. A report was received from Air L. G. Goodaere with reference to his ordering off a player named Soft’ c< during the Clifton-Star game on dune 21, alleging that Soffe, when on the ground, had kicked a player named Clarke. A letter was presented addressed to Scffe from Clarke, in which the latter

apologised lor striking Soffe previous to the kicking referred to.

Soffe • attended the' meeting, and in denying the charge, stated that it was a ease of mistaken identity. A representative of the club also waited on the meeting and testified to Soffe’s usual good character as a player. The chairman stated that although the case was' not a very serious one they could not afford to- overlook it. It was decided that Soffe would be required to . stand down for two playing Saturdays. Air E. Gilmoiir reported that he had ordered' off a player named Moran for heckling during the Tukapa-Eltham game on June 21. —A fetter received from Moran stated that he had been penalised for a breach committed by another player, who was not named. — Mr Casey gave the player a good character, and stated that, though he had no desire that the offence should be overlooked, he hoped the penalty would not be a severe one. —Air Fearon commented on this and similar cases,' and stated that while be would not advocate harsh treatment, he thought they should at this advanced stage of the season deal firmly with offenders, who apparently were failing to take warning from the examples made of [)layers reported earlier in the season.— It was decided to stand the player down for two playing Saturdays. THE OKAIAAYA DEPUTATION.

A deputation representing the Okaiawa Club waited on the meeting in support 'of eight charges alleging instances of incompetence and erroneous rulings by the referee during the Okaiawa-inglewood game. The charges contended that one of the line umpires appointed was not competent to act; mat- the referee faiLed to- penalise Inglewood for unfairly placing the ball in the serum; that he had wrongly penalised, for obstruction, an Okaiawa player who had collided with an Inglewood player wild had the ball; that he had wrongly taken a line-out back to Okaiawa’s twenty-five; that lie had reversed a decision; .that he-had failed to penalise an- Inglewood player for lying on the ball, Okaiaiva being robbed of a certain try; that he had lagged too far behind the ball, and was repeatedly not ip. the position to giv4 rulings; and that he hack failed to award a necessary charge ruling. Air Houlahan (secretary of the club) reveiewed the charges and described the various instances.

Air B. Roberts, in reply to a question, stated that as captain of the team he had appealed without result to the referee regarding the line umpire. He also- ' covered the various charges and explained the details. With reference to the final charge. Air Atkin explained that when about to place the ball for the kick at goal, following a try, he noticed an Inglewood player crossing the field. He- had placed the ball on the ground, believing that the referee would award a nocharge kick, but- the referee had failed to do so, .with the result that- his team had lost an .almost certain goal, which would have resulted in a draw instead of a lost game to his club. He had afterwards learned that the player had left the game, but as he had. not .known this previously,-, he considered the ap-, peal was justified. v Air Coutts said he had to support Okaiawa’s charges. Apparently the referee had during the second spell become ‘‘rattled,” and had not been confident concerning the necessary rub ings.

On the conclusion of further/evidence, the chairman said he was sure the charges had been made merely in the interests of fair play, and’not iii any spirit of vindictiveness. He referred to Mr Atkin’s statement that the referee had. up to a certain point, been satisfactory. The referee dealt with the various charges, refuting each in turn, and Air T. Petty, on behalf of the Classification Board, and Air G. Hopkins, president of the Northern. Division Referees’ Association, evidenced that Air Andrews was a capable referee.* In conclusion, the following resolution was adopted, on the motion of Air AVhyte: “That the union is of the opinion that the charges of absolute incomeptence made by the Okaiawa Club are not proved, but the union recommends to the senior Appointment Board that if Air Andrews is again appointed to a senior match, the whole of the members of the Appointment Board view the match.”