REFEREE AND CRITICS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 20020, 9 August 1928, Page 10

REFEREE AND CRITICS.

LEAGUE FOOTBALL TEST. MR. BULL MAKES REPLY. INTERPRETATION OF RULES. BREACHES BY THE ENGLISHMEN. The referee in last Saturday's test match between the English League Footballers and New Mr. L. E. Bull, in a considered reply to criticisms of his rulings and in reference to the unfortunate incident at the dinner on Saturday evening says:— I can assure both Mr. Osborne and Mr. Hutchins that they cannot, to any greater extent than myself, regret the incident that occurred on Saturday evening'when Mr. Sullivan and myself were, "as Mr. Hutchins has stated they have a habit of doing in England" being quite frank In reference to the interpretation of rules and the control of games. I feel t;:st as we. also have that ability in New Zealand and considering all incidents during and after the match, I was quite justified in replying to Mr. Sullivan as r did. Before commenting on the attitude of the members of the English team toward me concerning my control of the game and the expressed opinions of both managers in reference to my interpretation of the rules I would like to give a general review of the circumstances surrounding the present differences of opinion. Only One Interpretation. It is admitted, of course, that there should be only one interpretation of the rules as laid clown by the English League and the referees in New Zealand are endeavouring to carry out these to the best of their ability. It will also be admitted • that unless we are notified of any revision of the rules from the Home authorities these differences of opinion during the visit of a team will always occur. On this point wo are supported by Messrs. Osborne and Hutchins in their remarks at a conference with the New Zealand council on Thursday last when they both stated that they were astounded to learn that we have had no advice from the English League in reference to the interpretation of rules concerning this tour.; The Main Trouble. ' The main trouble on Saturday, so far as the rules were concerned, was the scrum. There can be only one interpretation regarding the halfback retiring behind his scrum. after placing the ball in the tunnel. There can also be only one interpretation about the front row men lifting their feet before the ball strikes the ground in the centre of the j scrum, the hooker having to keep his feet behind the centre line of the scrum before the ball hits the ground. The half, must noV. place the ball behind his Booker's legs. I think the manager ■will , agree to these interpretations, and in the event of any breach the offending side must be penalised. The first goal kicked by New Zealand was the result of one- of these breaches. Mr. Osborne states that I. repeatedly allowed the ball to be played when it came out of ' the tunpel instead of behind the pack. Surely he :rfieans behind the front row of forwards, and I consider that I was the only one in a position to see exactly what .■"eras occurring . Player Kicked Deliberately. It is quite possible, but not admitted, that the ball did come out this way, but no doubt the English half through his non-retirement would get the ball. The- result of the penalties from which points were kicked or scored were for distinct breaches outside of scrum rules, i.e., a man offside, holding on to a man after he had parted with possession. This breach, of course, led to a try by List. The last penalty was awarded for an English player deliberately kicking Prentice, a New Zealand player, when at least ten yards away from the ball. The other penalties awarded were for scrum and other breaches and no points were scored from same. , ~ " I think it will be agreed from the above explanations that the rules were interpreted according to the English Rule Book. I would also venture to refer the manager to page 34 of their rules, which states that when a referee penalises a player he should state to such player his reason for doing so, and the player must not question the point. On every occasion when the.: play era on both sides made breaches " the reason of the decision was pointed out to them, but unfortunately they were not Jaken without question. A Handshake ant! Remarks. I might state that I am not prepared to. rgtract any of rny statements, and that they were not made in a fit of temper. Would the English managers ask the two,players who shook hands with mo at the conclusion of the game what remarks they- made to me? , If this is true sportsmanship I am afraid that I will take a lot of convincing. Another unsportsmanlike attitude was adopted by the English team when they insisted on the game commencing in the second spell. I will admit that I was bound to start the game, and did so, but would it not have been sporting for the English baptain to ask me to wait until the New Zealand team was on the field ? In conclusion, I notice that Mr. Osborne says that a man of my experience ought to have known better, but it was through mv experience that I had to stand up and reply to Mr. Sullivan.