RUGBY FIASCO

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 18 August 1933, Page 3

RUGBY FIASCO

REFEREES REPLY TO UNION The Nelson Rugby Referees Association lias handed the following statement to us for publication: — The report in the “Evening Mail °t 9th inst., on the meeting of the Management Committee of the Nelson Rugby Union contains so many misleading statements that we would appreciate an opportunity of stating our side ot the question. In the first place wc would point out that after making requests to the Rugby Union for information regarding the feeling of clubs on the matter of appointing referees wo have had no official communication from that body on Hie matter. Appointments were made at our weekly meeting for the games on Saturday, sth August, in the usual manner These appointments were subsequently O.K.’d by the sub-committee of the Rugby Union appointed for that purpose. These approved appointments Mere read to our meeting and the Appointment Board was congratulated by a member of our Association on their appointment to the Rival-Pirate semoi match. These remarks were endorsed by the president of the Rugby Union. On receipt of a letter from the Rugby Union containing the following resolution: “That the appointment in question be referred back to the Appointment Board and that they appoint another referee to control the match we wrote in reply as follows: “Replying to your letter of the 3rd inst., there are iio referees available for any appoint nient other than those O.K. d by y° ll J sub-committee. (You will notice that two changes have been neeessaiy m the original appointments owing to uuforseen circumstances. Under these conditions we strongly advise that these appointments should stand.” The informaltiou contained in this letter is hardly borne out by the remarks of the president of the Rugby Union who stated: “We were turned down point blank I think. Mr Brownlie stated that he was under the impression that the two teams could agree mutually on a referee and on Thursday he and the Rival delegate had agreed on another referee to control tne irame. How could they agree on another referee as no list of available ferees was given, but a list ot appointments to certain games? Also m reply to Mr Brough, who asked whether the Union had a referee available it the referee appointed did not take the game, the president replied: “That is where the Union failed, as they had no referee for the match, and the committee will have to get out of that as well as they Ca “Mr Potter: ‘Did the referee go onto the field with the approval of this com-nut-tee ? • “The president: ‘Not as far as this Union was concerned.” Why then, was the referee allowed to stand on the field for sixteen minutes while members of the Rugby Union tried to persuade the Pirate team to take the field under him? To quote from the report again: “Mr McPherson: ‘The referees held their meeting over till h riday evening and left us with Saturday .morning only to get out of the stew.” Held over indeed ! Yet tile club concerned waited from 10th June to _3id August before protesting, to the Union. This is assuming, of course, that the protest was the outcome of something ox tilings which happened on the football field, as that club last played under the referee in question on 10th June. In conclusion we would like to draw your attention to the fact that football matters in Nelson have not been runiiincr smoothly during the past season or two" and this association desirous ot clearing up anything of this nature, requested the Nelson Rugby Union to meet them at a round table confereifce at the end of last season and renewed this request in the middle of the present season. With what results? A re* fusal in each case, on the grounds that there was nothing official to do at such a conference ; this from a body that expoets us to appoint referees from the football gossip from Brightwater to Nelson. Thanking you, sir, for your valuable space.