THE WELLINGTON-AUCKLAND FOOTBALL MATCH.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 606, 15 September 1883, Page 10

THE WELLINGTON-AUCKLAND FOOTBALL MATCH.

AN AUCKLAND OPINION. (UNITED FBESS ASSOCIATION.) Auckland, September 11. The Mayor, in his speech as Chairman at a football banquet given the returned representative team, said, when he,got the invitation to preside last Saturday, he accepted it with pleasure, but on seeing certain statements from Wellington journals, he felt disinclined to do f-o .On the arrival of Mr Henderson he had fully gone into the circumstances of the disp.ute at Wellington, and he came to the conclusion that Mr Henderson could take no other course, and he entirely coincided with the way in which Mr Henderson had carried out the affairs of the team. The players expressed themselves pleased with their southern tour. The banquet was a great success. F JRTHER P \RTICULARS OF THE AUCKLAND VERSION. (FROM OUB OWN COBEESPONDENT). Auckland, September 12. Regarding the Wellington football dispute, the Mayor, in proposing the toast, *' The Auckland Football Representatives and Umpire,” said that when he was asked to preside on the present occasion, he replied that he would do so with pleasure ; but on the previous evening his feelings were somewhat mingled. In fact, on reading the report of the Wellington match, he felt that if what was stated in that report in reference to the dispute was correct, he soould not care to be present that evening ; because he felt that instead of having covered themselves with honor, the team would have disgraced itself. He made it- his business to inquire into the matter, and he could say with pleas Dre that the captain of the team could not have done otherwise than he had done. He had known Mr Henderson from boyhood, and he had known by repute of that gentleman’s character as a footballist-aud as captain of a football team that he was always cool and collected, and if he erred at all it was in the direction of rather yielding a point than otherwise. He (Mr Clarke) thought the statement must be incorrect, because it was so unlike Mr Henderson, and he _ was glad to say, on inquiry, that the opinion was borne out by facts. He felt that the team would have disgraced itself if the f statement was true, because it was an understood rule, not only in football, but in other sports that the decision of the referee must bs final, but there was something understood iu connection with that, and that was that the decision must be in accordance with the rules of football. If the decision was altogether outside of those rules, then the case was completely altered. It was agreed that if either of the umpires called the ball back, no further reference was required, and the ba?l must be brought back. The umpire for Auckland declared a particular ball was a ‘‘throw forward,” and, on his ordering the ball back, the Auckland team remained passive, as the ball was dead at that time, as much so as if it had been between spells, and when one of the other side ran in and touched down, the umpire, in giving such a decision as

was stated, gave a decision altogethe, outside the rules, »nd the Captain, therefore could not accept it, and he was glad to learn; further, that one other statement which had been made was incorrect—namely, that the captain threatened to take his men off the field. As to Mr Cotter, the umpire, he could only say that he was sure that gentlemau had done his duty-. Mr Henderson, Captain of the team, said as to the disputed try at Wellington, the Chairman had gone fully into that, and the whole team sustained what he (Henderson) thought was the proper action to be taken. On that occasion the team certainly came to the conclusion that the match had been de-; clared drawn, and it whs with the utmost surprise when they arrived in Auckland they found that the Wellington papers had published a contrary statement. The Wellington umpires, in responding to a toast after the match, referred .to the match as a draw. Mr Sheehan, M.H.R., embodied the fact in verse, and recited the lines at the dinner in the evening. Mr Cotter (umpire) said with regard to the Wellington dispute, Mr Henderson stated it was arranged before going into the field tliat the umpires were to settle disputes. A dispute occurred on his (Cotter’s) side of the field. He took one side of the field and Mr Firth the other. The affair happened within fire yards of where ho (Cotter) was standing. Before the man caught the ball, he ordered it back as a “ throw on.” Mr Firth was fully 40yds ‘away, and the referee fully 70yds off, so neither of these gentlemen could see so much of the affair as he did. Messrs Davy, Thomson, and another Wellington man acknowledged that the hall was a “ throw on.” On no ground could they claim a try on that occasiou, and at the dinner the match was spoken of as a draw.