THE O.R.F.U AND THE IDA VALLEY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19903, 24 September 1926, Page 13

THE O.R.F.U AND THE IDA VALLEY

APPEAL. TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —The decision of the O.R.F.U.’s Appeal Committee in upholding the appeal of the Ida Valley Club against the referee’s ruling in allowing a goal after the ball had (during its flight towards the goal) been touched by a defending player, will cause more arguments now than at the time it happened. I would like to ask. Sir, through your column, how the committee arrived at its decision. The rule distinctly says that when a free kick has been awarded the defending side must remain passive on or behind , a line drawn through the mark where the penalty kick is awarded and parallel to the goal line. I maintain that the latter part of the rule has very little bearing on the matter. The defending side may not charge; it must remain passive. What constitutes a side? Surely it is not the man standing on the mark; it must be 15 men. Here wo have the whole side being not merely the man or men standing on the mark. According to the Appeal Committee’s decision, one can stand on the mark, and another directly behind him may hold up both hands. There is nothing passive about this The Kaseby Club holds the disputed cup at present, and I think, for one, that it should take the case to the N.Z.R.U. A ruling from that body would be final, but as, it stands referees are no further enlightened. The same pointi,. may crop up again next year, and I, for one, am not satisfied that the Appeal Committee of the O.R.F.U. is correct. —I am, etc., R. M’Nacght. Waip’ata, September 21.