TO IMPROVE “SOCCER”

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11253, 4 July 1922, Page 3

TO IMPROVE “SOCCER”

CHARGING AND IMPEDING MATTERS DISCUSSED AT REFEREES MEETING. JOINT .COMMITTEE TO ACT. An important discussion concerning the application of Rule, 9, and the control of referees over players in matters of charging and obstruction, took place last evening at a well attended meeting of the Wellington Referees - ' Association. Mr B. L. Salmon presided, and those present included Mr C. E. Fordham, chairman of the New Zealand Football Association, and Mr A. E. Wells, chairr man of the Wellington Football Associa-' tion. / A letter from the Wellington Football Association drew attention to the ‘'undue amount of charging which is taking place in various matches played on Saturdays, with a request that your referees be a9ked to curtail it as much as possible/' The chairman: The law says charging is permissible but must not be dangerous or violent. Was this charging dangerous or violent? Mr W. Bryce: I think this letter arises put of the blocking system adopted in the Australian match. • THE PUBLIC DEMAND. Mr A. E. Wells replied that it was not the outcome of the test match. The idea of the Wellington Football Association was that the public were demanding that such things as undue blocking, charging and rough, play generally should be curtailed. Attention had been called to the way in which men were impeded or charged when not playing the ball, half-back and half-side charges, and the Wellington Football Association thought the game should be cleaned up if possible. The letter was not a direction, but asked for the cooperation of ttie Referees' Association in putting down those things which should not be tolerated these days. The rules did say charging was permissible, but it was never intended that an undue amount of charging should be permitted. It should only be permitted when the man was playing the ball; but what was happening was this: One man had the ball iand another whs ©losing up to intercept him 6ome yards away. A third player on the side of No. 1 thereupon charges No. 2 to prevent him reaching the player with the ball. That sort of thing must be stopped, for it was not good for the game, and the public were demanding something a little better. That sort of thin/j led to rough play, for the player, thinking himself unfairly - charged retaliated. Once their temper .was upset the referee was up against it, and it was very hard for him to control the game. NOT FOOTBALL. Mr Bryce 6aid he thought the trouble arose over the Australian match, in which a blocking game was played, it might be correct, but it was not football. It was simply stopping one another from playing. As a referee he had not seen any unduly rough play in matches. Mr Campbell supported Mr "Wells. There was a danger of rough play creeping in, and with certain referees the men had been getting away with a lot of jumping ana* too heavy charging. The letter came at an opportune time, and was simply a recommendation to the referees tQ keep their eyes on these offences. The question was first raided by the Australians in discussion, and there had been a lot of controversy on the point. He had seen footbalt pfayed in England and Scotland, and the Scottish game was the prettier to watch because they played the ball and not the man, and there was not the obstruction that there was in the English game. He submitted that unnecessary and dangerous charging was not permissible, and no charging at all unless the player was playing the ball. At present they would find find one man charging another when he was eight or ten yards from the ball. Obstruction was all right, but the man who indulged in it was liable to be charged from behind, and this led to bad feeling. NOT A PARLOUR GAME. They did not want to make it a parlour game, but they did want the game kept clean. They had reached a crisis in football in Wellington, and they should let the players see that they meant to have the game played properly and fairly. The chairman • The referee’s chart gives the referee permission to penalise’ these things. Mr C. Webster thought referees should deal with the matter. The chairman : If the referee does not penalise these things he is acting wrongly. Mr Webster pointed out that a referee who had recently arrived from England had stopped that sort of play at the start of the game, and Aat should be done every time or the game would go back. Mr Ward pointed out that charging was permissible, and instanced the fact that when an opposing forward was coming on with tne bail one back would take the player and the other the ball. Would Mr Campbell stop that? Mr Campbell: Yes. Mr Ward: If a back charged a forward who was trying to run round the backs to save the ball from going over the line, would he penalise thatP Mr Campbell: It depends how far he is away from the ball. Voices: If he plays tho ball, no. —Mr Ward added that it was for referees to apply the rules as best they could. Mr Bryce: Are we reading the rules .rightly or wrongly 9

SOME OPINIONS. Downie suggested that there should bo a round-table conference. It was permissible for a back to charge a forward when the goalie called out that he was ready to take the ball, and this was done at Home. The chairman suggested that the referees should be circularised on the subject, ag if they considered the charging dangerous, or jumping took place, they had the power to penalise the player. Mr Wells said there were one or two points upon which they might ggjt the advice of the English Football Association. After" some further discussion the chairman quoted Cutty’s five well-known authorities on the subject, end also from Piekford. .AN AUTHORITY. Pickford’s oook on Association football quoted rule nine, which says: is permissible, but it must not be violent or dangerous/’ Instructors of the Association game said: "Charging that is neither violent nor dangerous has always been allowed, though not hitherto expressed in the laws. The International Board have 'made thi* addition, apd referees should carry- it out. Let charging bo of the good, honest type, and not degenerate into fough play. Commenting on these quotations, Piekford says: "Charging an opponent who has the ball, or who is causing an obstruction, or who qoing for the ball, or in some way manoeuvring to gain an advantage, is permissible; but changing when there i« no reason for it is not. There should be some reason for a charge, and a reason having a bearing on the points, as, for instance, of ridding an opponent of the 'ball, of preventing him getting it when he is making the effort, of clearing him out of tho way when he is trying to obstruct, and ot stopping him from getting past in order to take a pass, or interfere with someone else. The charge should be delivered , with the shoulder only, and the fair , weight of the body, neither stooping nor jumping, nor 'below the belt/ 60 to ©peak. And the law continues: 'A player shall not be charged from behind unlew he Is Intentionally obstructing an opponent/” The chairman added that it was a pity referees were not more strict in the first five minutes, as it would save them a lot of trouble later. Mr Fordliam argued that it was wrong to say a man ehoud not be charged when he was going for the bail. Mr Campbell: Then you will have a bear-garden in five minutes. Mr Wells said he did not think the W.F.A. wished to have a finger in the pie. Thev would rather the referees handle the matter. It was a question of the interpretation of the rules. Mr Ward: It may lead to unpleasantness on the field stopping it, and there mar be some ordering off. The chairman said a warning could be given firet, and if the offence was repeated the plaver could be ordered off. Mr Downie suggested that they might have meetings and decide upon one definite intornretation of such rules. Eveufcuallv it wn* derided that the rhairman, Mr Fordham, Mr Downie, and Mr Wells meet a sub-committee of the Wellington Football Association to frame a motion to be brought before the next meeting of the "Referees’ Associating.