FOOTBALL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 6738, 19 September 1883, Page 2

FOOTBALL.

THE AUCKLAND-WELLINGTON MATCH.

BOTH SIDES OF THE QUESTION.

The statements made by the Aucklanders at thoir dinner having been published in Welliugton, letters in contradiction have been published there sb follow:—' - . > ~, ,

"Mr J. P. Firth, umpire for Wellington, has made the following statement:—'Mr Cotter called back for a " throw on." After Mr Webb had obtained tho touchdown, I was appealed to, and I gave as my decision that it. was nil fair. Mr Cotter is reported to have said that I was 40 yards away, and not in a position to see properly what happened. I was a considerable distance from the play at the time, perhaps 40 yards; but I had carefully kept myself level with the play for the very purpose of watching, the pass which* was plainly coming, Therefore, I was just as well able as Mr Cotter to see whther the pasawas fair or not. . ,•..'«. The Mayor of Auckland says that 'it was agreed that if either of the umpires called the ball back no further reference-was required. 1 There was; no such arrangement. Mr Henderson Bays that at the dinner the Wellington umpire 'referred to the match as a draw.' The umpire did not speak of the game as a draw. I think that the Auckland men are wrong j but, to say the least of it, they had very hard luck; and though there has beea a great deal of talk about their discourteous conduct, we should remember that courtesy on our part .is just as, necessary as on theirs. .' :' Mr G. Wright, referee in the match, states: " I have been requested to give a statement'of the facts concerning the decision (riven by me: as referee in last Saturday's football match, which has been alleged by the Auckland captain and umpire to be erroneous. Although, as a general rule, I do not approve of a referee justifying his decisions, yet after the statements made at the football'dinner in-Auck-land, I feel it a duty to myself-'to put.oh record the true facts of the cateso far as I am concerned. At the time of ten alleged 'throw on,' I was about 15 yards away from the spot, and about five off the dir»et line of pl»y, and near the Auckland goal-line, so that from" my position in the field I was perfectly able to decide whether improper play took place or not. . .... I was appealed -to as "to

whether the ball was a throw-on or not. Ide cided it was uot. I was convinced at the time, and am now, that my decision'waa correct. I have confined. myßeiik entirely to "my own position in this matter, and leave the Wellington captain and umpire (to deal with any other atatemeuU made by the Aucklanders."

These again having^ been published.ln Auckland, have called forth the following in the localPresa:— " ; ' ' ' ■•'!'■'■ ' ■

THE AUCKLAND'CMPIBK'S VEBSION.1.- \ "Sir,—Mr Firth,in bis version of the dis-; puted try, says:^Cotter called . t»ck for throw-on after Webb- had obtained thai touchdown.' Mr Firth is again iiiP.'the wrong. The man to whom Allan threw on had not run 7 a yard before I called .'thrown on,'-and the' Auckland men did not attempt to stop him. - I was close to Allan at the time, and hid Mr Firth been where I was- he.^would^have put his stick up and called the .ball back, for a more, palpable thing I never saw.; And it was not until, after the .Wellington man had touched down unmolested that Mr Firth was appealed to. When arranging the scoring, &c. previous to the match,'Mr? Henderson; as in other matches, distinctly' stated that the umpires were to call the ball back on any infringement of the rules; At Christchurch and Dunedin, when either umpire ■ called the ball back, it was never''disputed. Mr Wright, the referee,-states Hbat I have' greatly exaggerated bis position on the field.. He acknowledges being 15 yards away, and near the Auckland goal-line.' Will, it is.just; where I thought be was, only the, throw-on took place about the half-distance flag, and not" at the twenty-five flag; he must have been fully 40 or 50 yards away; and how a man can judge a throw-on at the half-distance flag from. the touch-line, both teams being between him and the ball, puzzles me.—Albebt Cottkb." ■ ; '■ WHAT-THE ABCKXAND 7 CAPTAIN SAYS. .V! "Sir, —It was not my intention to havenppeared in print, as the matter of the Wellington' match has been referred -to our* Association, but having read the letter of the Wellington umpire I think it advisable that his state-' inent and those of the referee should not pass uncontradicted. I would first mention that as the tour of tha Auckland team w.as to ascertain which district was entitled to claim supremacy on the football field, it wasintended that .the three, matches should be played on precisely the same terms and conditions. > Canterbury and Otago agreed without hesitation, but Wellington desired: to play in ■'spells of 40 minutes • each,. and to score::■„ by, goals instead of 45-minutes spells,; and' to score by points; and further objected '■ to accept as referee a well-known Dunedin player Whom I had nominated, naming,' instead, Mr Wright, for whose fairness and impartiality Mr Campbell vouched strongly. I felt disinclined to accept a local man, but it: was only on my agreeing to' bis appointment that the Wellington captain consented to our; torms. The action of Wellington 'was, I think,.; • contrary to üßage in such matters. Next, as", regards the duties of the umpires.. Notwithstanding the statement of Mr Firth to the con-.' trary, I must distinctly ■■ say that in tha , Wellington match, as in those1 of Otagb; and: Canterbury, it was arranged that so soon aa. either umpire noticed an infringement of rules, he was to call, the only exception being when the, 7 '■■ ball was thrown in from touch. In confirmation of this I have telegrams from Mr Million (theCanterbury captain), and Messrs Robertson,; Dixon, and Colbeck, (the ptago. captain,' umpire, and referee). The; position' nf Mr Firth and Mr Wright did not permit of their being able to judge properly. whether or not the ball was thrown oh by-Allan, both'being• oh the opposite side !of the,field, and between; the place and our goal, towards which he was running." Mr Firth is apparently gifted with, the faculty of mind-reading if as ho says, he saw Allan was going to pass the ball, and pro■pared himself to watch the-operation: Mr Cotter was close to" and parallel with Allan, and called "throw-on"" almost immediately, which had tho effect of stopping our play, thereby allowing Webb t6;run in. On the other.umpire and referee giving; a decision in -favour of. Wellington, ■'I objected, ,as being outside their powers,- and at variance with. the match arrangements. We main-. ' tain that the moment the ball .wa« called it was out of play, and that there was no necessity to appeal. This ; principle was adopted by bothßides on all other occasions throughout the game, notably so when O'Con- . nor got a try for Auckland, and.the ball was - brought back on the call of the Wellington umpire. Mr Campbell says I ought to nave known that the referee's decision is only im-' peachable when the construction of-a rule or law is involved. So I do; and it is on the rule as to the duties of the umpires,* as arranged for the match, that we take our stand. Considerable . stress is laid upon our having threatened to leave the field. So far, as I know,-or . can learn, no such threat occurred during' the dispute, and it was not until after . the game bad finished that any mention was made of our intention of so doing. The reference in Mr Campbell's letter to his having told me that the goal allowed to Warbrick was not fair is the first I have heard of it,' The goal was given by their own umpire. ; After the,, match, when leaving the dressing-room, ho said he was not satisfied, and purposed referring the matter to the Southern Unions; but neither in words nor manner did he'leadme to believe that such reference was for other than his own satisfaction. ■'■ The statement that at the dinner the Wellington umpire did hot refer to the match as drawn is incorrect, as can be proved by those of our team present. I have a telegram from Mr Campbell <in-wh'ieb. he says that they purposely avoided referring to the matter at .the dinner to avert discus-' sion ; but would it not have been more in accord with that courteous spirit, with which, from his own account, he is largely imbued, to have offered a time or opportunity of arranging any difference, instead of maintaining a.- studied silence, and allowing us to leave under the impression that they coincided with our views, only - to launch out into a storm of correspondence and mistatements after our departure? No-one' ■-- more than myself regrets the occurrence; and the subsequent turn affairs have taken, resulting in the establishment of a feeling between the two places which will take a deal of diplomacy and soothing . balm to efface, and which bears such a marked contrast to the kindly spirit engendered between the Southern districts and ourselves.—T. Henderson, captain of the Auckland Team." ." : AN AUCKLAND PLAYBB ON THE SUBJECT. " Sir, —As one of the miserable participators in the late match at Wellington, I must,' if you will you allow me, make public the position taken up by the Auckland team. I am loth to rush into print, but even our' own friends do not., understand the position. It is said, and rightly too, that the decision of the referee should be final, but .the real fact is that in the matter in question neither tho referee nor the Wellington umpire had a right to give an opinion. And here I •; csme to tho gist of the whole business. It was agreed before the match commenced that either umpire should have power to instantly stop the game in the event of an infringement of rules,' or what he considered to be an infringement. " Our umpire did so stop thp game, and the ball " became, dead, and (as was done eventually) should at once have been brought back to the place where the breach took place, and there kicked off. _ Therein lies the whole strength ot our position, and everyone outside of Wellington must agree that it is unassailable. That the Wellington umpire was aware of tho arrangement I have mentioned is proved by I his having, on several occasions prior to the one in question, stopped the game as our umpire did. It surely is not nacessary to say more, though I am sorely tempted to express my opinion of the people who will slander a ■'• man as our poor captain has been slandered, and who are so blind that it-took them two •ays to discover they had won the match. May their eyes yet be further opened I is tha prayer of, yours, Ckas, H. CnoxTON." \

Tub nocsss wn litb in—iv other words, our bodiesare hold on repairing; leases. We must prop and sustain them when they exhibit signs of weakness and decay, or they will inevitably ibreak down. In Dr WALKBR'sCALiTOßSiAVissoAßßiTTKna.thedebilitated, the bilious, tho rheumatic, the consumptive will find tho most genial tonic and restorative over offered th suffering invalid. Itcontainsno alcohol, and therefore leaves no sting behind.—Agents: P. Hatstan asp Co, Duuedln.—[Advt ]