CHARGE OF UNFAIRNESS.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLIII, 7 June 1909, Page 1

CHARGE OF UNFAIRNESS.

TO THE EBITOIt. | I A short time ago the writer of your football notes gave your readers to understand that all football doings or occurrences would be deal with openly and impartially in his notes. This was shortly after an Old Boy had been suspended for an "after-the-match" offence. Notwithstanding his laudable alleged intention your writer fails to make the slightest reference either by name (as in the previous case) or otherwise, either in the report of the game or in the report of the Union's meeting, or yet in the weekly notes, to the fact that a member of the Rival team was ordered off the field in the Rival-Old I am, etc., ' "FAIR FLAY." Nelson, June 6, 1909. ("Touehline" writes: — The correspondent evidently refers to a paragraph appearing in football notes at the beginning of the season, which reads as follows: "The names of all players reported for breach of rules will be published without exception." It is quite true a member of the Rival team was ordered off the field in the RivalOld Boys match last Saturday ween, nnd on the day following the next- meeting of the Nelson Rugby Union a member of the "Mail" staff interviewed the Assistant Secretary of tho Rugby Union to secure information for the publication of the offender's name. The reporter was informed that the player in question had not been reported, and therefore publication of his name would have been obviously unfair. The reason why names are not published until reported is to protect players from any erratic action on the part of a referee. It is simply in the interests of clean football that names in cases mentioned are published in these columns. The case reported and published in the "Mail," it should be stated, lest tho previous sentence should give a wrong impression, was in no way connected with unclean football. It was an instance of where a player let his tongue run too far after the conclusion of a match. Obviously this is not the thing to be permitted. The player was reported and his name published in due course. Whether the Rival player in question should t

( have been reported or not is not a matter which concerns us. The fact remains that he was not, and therefore according to our rules, which were framed not without experience m these matters, the name was withheld from publication.— Ei. N.E.M.)