MANAWATU RUGBY UNION.

NZ Truth, Issue 59, 4 August 1906, Page 3

MANAWATU RUGBY UNION.

TO THE 'EDITOB. • Sir.—The Manawatu Rugby Union,, having its head quarters m the town of Palmerston North, is supposed to •control some thirteen clubs. The management committee is supposed to consist of non-players, but, when any of the Palmerston teams are short and a member of the management committee is on the ground he dons the jersey and forfeits his seat on the Union to play for the team which he represents on the Union. This has happened on several occasions. The Feilding Club, being the only outside Club competing and being unable to get a non-player to attend Union meetings, consequently has no representation on the management committee. In reference to the Kia Toa V. Feilding 11. match, played at Feilding on June 2, 1906. In this match several Kia Toa players misconducted themselves by striking the Feilding players and the referee absolutely refused to order them off the field (I might here state that the referee m question was an officer of the Kia Toa Club) apparently for the reason that the Feildina; players did not hit back. The poiice constable present invaded the field and demanded the names of the offenders and charged them with assault. The Union put off their enquire until the cases were heard by the Magistrate. The cases duly came on for hearing and the Magistrate dismissed them, saying he had no jurisdiction. On the strength of this the Union let the matter drop but ordered the match -to be played over again at Feilding. The .match was played again at Feilding on Saturday, July 1.4, and two players (one of each team) came m contact with one another and the referee ordered the Feilding: player off the field, and was then going to let the match proceed when the captain of the Feilding team appealed to have the iCia Toa player put off also, and after some consideration the referee ordered, him (the Kia Toa player) off. There were no blows struck of any kind. The Kia Toa player had the ball and the Feilding played collared him, but before he was thrown he got rid of the ball and m a kiind of way resisted the throw. The referee reported the matter to the Union. The Feilding player was not asked to attend the meeting, m fact he was told by the secretary of the Union he was not needed and would not be heard, the referee having all the say. The matter duly came before the Union and was dealt with. The result was that the Feilding player was suspended until the end of the 1907 season, and Kia Toa player for. the remainder of this (1906) season. Do they call this Justice ? Is there any reason why these players should not have been called to explain their conduct, and if anything contrary to the rules did happen why not have treated them both alike ? Since writing the above the Feilding Club applied for a re-hearing, but the application was refused.— l am, &c, JUSTICE,