WE WON’T SIGN!

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7867, 1 August 1911, Page 1

WE WON’T SIGN!

A FOOTBALL DISPUTE REFEREES AND MUTUAL AGREEMENTS. At last night's meeting of the Wellington Referees’ Association tho following letter was received from the secretary of the Wellington Rugby Union;— I am directed to write to ypur association to ask if ray committee is eorrectiv informed iu saying that members of the association refuse to sign mutual agreements to act as provided in rule 10 of the rules for club contests of the union, and if so, on what grounds? Tho chairman staled there was no minute in tho book in regard to an agreement. About 1896 or 1897 tho association had a by-law which stated that in tho event of the captains cf two teams agreeing upon a certain referee the ono so chosen could he appointed. That by-law was thrown out at a special meeting, but iu later year's it was revived, Mr L. Sievers said there was an understanding between members that they would not sign agreements. It was beyond the power of the association to pass a resolution of this nature, because it would be opposed to and overridden by the rules. There was therefore an understanding, that tho members would not sign agreements. Air Laws moved that tho reply to ho sent to the Rugby union suould be ” Yes” to uio that <iuestion, and to the second question the answer should bo that it was not in the best interests of the association. Tim aim of members was to support ono another. Some years ago certain referees " ruled tho roost" in this respect, that they had the most prominent matches every week. The association should prevent that sort of thing occurring, and it was with this view that members had decided they would sign no mutual agreopienijj. If they sent this reply to.tne Ruby Union he thought it would be sufficient. Ho would not sign an agreement under.any circumstances. He was quite willing to bo appointed by the appointment board, but 'would not consent to tho referees being brought under tho thumbs of the clubs.

Mr Fordyco seconded tho motion. It was a pity this case had cropped up again.

-Mr Sievers said there was no . doubt tho clubs liked to have the best referees possible, but in doing'-.so they overlooked tiiis fact: . they studied their senior engagements and forgot the juniors. If .this, rule-oam.u into, force it would wipe tho Referees’ Association out of existonce.

■ Mr Jones had always considered the mutual agreement should ’remain in force. His reason for this was that if the clubs agreed upon a certain referee they should have him'. Tho chairman said three members of tho Referees’ Association had met representatives of the Rugby Union, and at that meeting the appointment board was constituted. Tho mutual agreement was not then brought into force—it ’ was added by somebody after the conference had concluded. The association was so keen on- tlio matter that a motion that the association disband was proposed, hut was later replaced by a motion that the by-law dealing with the mutual agreement bo deleted. "That mutual agreement.” he continued, “is to the’ detriment of this association. I claim that tho appointment board, as at present- constituted, is not in accordance with the regulations laid down by tho conference at all. For years there has been no senior playing captain on tho board. In tho best interests of this association mutual agreements should not be signed, aud we do hot intend to sign them.”

Mr Connell agreed that the ,members should not sign agreements. ’ Mr Atkinson supported Mr Jones. The clubs and players were more essential to tho game than was the Referees’ Association. The clubs should get first consideration. ,

■ After a great deal of discussion it was decided that Messrs Neilson. Sievers and Connell be appointed to interview the Rugby Union in regard to the matter