ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21358, 11 June 1931, Page 4

ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL

By Corner Kick. FLETCHER CUP COMPETITION So far in the season, the controlling body has been fortunate in that the first round of the Fletcher Cup competition has been run off without the weather conditions causing a postponement of games, whilst in addition the attendance at Logan Park, has show a marked improvement. The high standard of football displayed by several of the teams, notably Maori Hill, Seacliff, Mosgiel, and High School Old Boys and Northern and Technical in a lesser degree, has given followers of the code little to cavil at, the majority of the games providing keen and exciting contests. The football all round is much ahead of that of last season, and the championship table discloses a very interesting position, Maori Hill being on top with 12 cup points for seven games, followed by Seacliff with II points, Mosgiel 10, and High School Old Boys 9. Judging from the results of the last two weeks’ matches it does not appear likely that the premiership is to be easily won, and a quickened interest should be displayed in the remaining series of matches. MAORI HILL v. HIGH SCHOOL OLD BOYS Supporters of the round ball code —and they were many who defied the elements and visited Logan Park on Saturday to see the Maori Hill-High School Old Boys’ match —must have been agreeably surprised with the display given by the teams. Considering the greasy ball and the waterlogged condition of the ground, the teams, playing a similar type of football, treated the onlookers to one of the best, it not the best, game, seen this season. They were two well-matched sides, which excelled in the close passing game, with the Old Boys displaying more finish and cohesion in their attacking movements, and it was only the excellent work ot Wills in goal that enabled Maori Hill to come out of the game with a draw, each side scoring a goal. He had more serious shots to contend with than his vis-a-v*s, Hall, and came out of the day’s work with credit. The greater part of the play was fairly evenly contested, although early in the first half, when it Had the advantage of a strong breeze, Maori Hill kept Old B6v s hard pressed, during which time Balk scored the team’s only goal with one of his characteristic drives, Old boys evening up matters with a penalty kick scored by Groves early in the second halt. Following the awarding of the penalty kick, one or two members of the Hill &.eam appeared to lose control of themselves, and with a less experienced goalkeeper, than Wills'between the sticks their action would have cost their side the match, as Old Boys were all over them at this period of the play. , . , The Hill team was partly disorganised by the 1 absence of Taylor and Carse from tta ranks. Vial, the centre forward, dropped back to the right back position, and played remarkably well throughout. He kicked surely, and displayed excellent judgment in meeting the attacks of Cameron and Wood on the Old Boys’ left. Bayne, the other back, played better than usual, but once_ again he penalised ms side through giving away a penalty. The most outstanding player of the team was Brown, at centre half, his heading and confident play beating the Old Boys attack in front of goal time and time again. Of the wing halves, Thompson was the better, playing his usual solid game. Balk and Oliver were the most prominent ot the forwards, being very effective in opening up and placing the ball to the best advantage. Dougall, at centre, was, however, no match for the opposing ha.f, Chapman, whilst Fraser, who filled Carse s position on the right wing, was weak in fine play. Sixton played well at tiroes to his partner. Balk, and this pair proved the more dangerous on attack. In the early matches of the season Old Boys gave promise of developing a good team, and their display on Saturday was one of their best so far. The benefit arising from coaching the school boys is fully apparent in this team, as all of them have received their training in the primary schools. On Saturday these players showed remarkable control over the slippery ball, and had they swung the ball about more instead of sticking to the close passing in view of the conditions prevailing they would probably have emerged victors. With the exception of the two wingers, Hamilton and Wood, the team played well. In attack the wingers were inclined to dwell on the ball instead of going through or playing to the centre, ana the opposing half-backs frequently used the opportunity thus given to the defence to mock the advance. The inside players—-Latimer, Groves, and Cameron — brought off some nice combination work, and considering the conditions their shooting was of a high order. The attack, however, is well supported by a strong intermediate line in Duncan, Chapman, and Boyd, and these players overshadowed the Hill trio. Both Duncan and Chapman were outstanding, sending the forwards away time and again. In Sutherland, the right, back, Old Boys have a remarkably good back. He has a fine, clean kick, keeps the ball well in play, whilst his sound judgment frequently enabled him in Saturday’s game to cut in on a pass and quickly turn defence into attack. His partner, Pickeril!, is playing with more confidence, and is a hard man to beat in close work. i MORNINGTON v. NORTHERN The game /between Mornington and Northern was played on the hill team’s ground*, and, considering the slippery playing surface, both teams served up good football for the fair number of spectators who braved the elements. Mornington, playing three substitutes in place of Donaldson, Morris,, and Haldane, rose to the occasion, and fully deserved their 3 —l victory. In . fact, they were decidedly unlucky not to have a much bigger margin in their favour. On Saturday’s showing, their absentee defenders were never missed, whilst the van, which included an old-timer in Fleming, played with fine dash and combination and harassed Northern’s defence persistently The “ Magpies’ ” outstanding players were Hall (custodian), Thompson, Perry, Wallace, and M‘Hugh The other members of the north end eleven worked hard throughout to avert defeat. Hall had little chance of stopping Mornington’e three scoring shots. He had a fair number of excellent saves to his credit. Thompson, at centre-half, was Morningtou’s stumbling block. Times without number he was responsible for saving the situation, and ably shared the honours of the day with Marshall and Moon on the opposing side. M‘Hugh, at inside-right, was as crafty as ever, but owing to his being opposed by a very astute and clever half in Moon, raanv of. his tricky movements came to nought. Wallace, who started off at out-side-left, also had a spell at centre-for-ward, as well as half-back, shone in all three berths. Cherry appeared in the unusual role of iuside-left, latterly trying left-half. He also worked hard, but seemed to be _ handicapped by his surplus weight. The outeideright had several tricky runs and was responsible for Northern’s only goal He notched same in cool fashion, slipping it cleverly past Oastler, who had left his charge to narrow the shooting angle. The winners’ most prominent players were Oastler, Johnstone (once he settled down), Marshall, Moon, and Fleming. The custodian displayed good anticipation, whilst Johnstone, who started off a bit shakily eventually shone as the best back on the field. Captain Marshall, who was filling thfe centre-half role, played his best game this season, and never made a single mis take during the game. The same can .be said of right-half Moon, who looks like proving a decided asset to the hill club. His goal from a free kick on the extreme outside of the field was a real beauty M'Donald, a Second Grader, ably backed up his partner’s defensive efforts and gave a very creditable showing for his debut in First Grade football this season. The whole van combined better than they have done all the season, and Schofield ard Connolly both had two very fine goals to their credit. Fleming worked assiduously from start to finish, and seemed to inspire the younger forwards on either side of him. Having been out of the game so long, his display on Saturady last was most praiseworthy.

SEACUFF v. PORT CHALMERS At Seaqliff the Hospital side had an interesting game with Port Chalmers The visitors held their opponents during the first half of the game, there being no score at half time, but experience told in the latter half when the home team put op four goals to Port Chalmers’ one. The Port players, notwithstanding their low position on the championship table, continue to show every keenness in their play, and on Saturday the team never let up until the final whistle. Hutchison, Evans, and the two Ives played well. Ives at

centre-half kept a close watch on Hooper. M’Lean, the ex-Mosgiel player and younger brother of Bab. M‘Leau, was included in the Seacliff side, which, although without Gordon and Simmonds, played with more method and cohesion, which eventually overcame the less experienced Port Chalmers' players. Latta was responsible for Port Chalmers’ only goal, the Seacliff scorers being Hooper (two and a penalty), Baillie, and Macpherson. CHATHAM CUP MATCHES Instead of continuing tbe matches for the Fletcher Cup, the committee decided at last Monday’s meeting to play off the two matches in the second round of the Chatham Cup, the draw resulting in Maori Hill meeting Northern and Seacliff the Port Chalmers team, which won the local competition last year, but lost to Western (Christchurch) in the final of the South Island. It is interesting- to note that this year marks the first occasion that the entries from South Island clubs exceed those from tbe North Island. On July 25 the Canterbury finalists are due to meet Westland, and the winners of this game will play the Otago finalists, either at Christchurch or Dunedin. On present form it appears likely that Seacliff and Maori Hill will be the two finalists in the local competition, and the contest should be one well worth seeing, as, although Seacliff suffered a defeat by 2 goals to nil when tbe teams met in the Fletcher Cup game, the Hospital mde has considerably improved since then. The first round, which was played between Seacliff and Mosgiel on the King’s birthday, provided a thrilling game to a record attendance of spectators, tbe Hospital side winning by the narrow margin of 2 goals to 1 One of Seacliffs; goals followed on a penalty, which did not find favour with a large number of the spectators. On the day Seacliff was the better side, however, Mosgiel failing to display the same-team work of former games this season. The latter had the advantage of the play in the closing part of the game when Porter changed his tactics and played up closer to his forwards, and the Seacliff defence was often hard pressed to the extent that a draw seemed likely before the end of the 90 minutes play. Thompson, Anderson, and Watson, however, were playing strongly, and survived all the onslaughts of Mosgiel s vanguard to score the equalising goal. - THE PENALTY KICK According to the Auckland Star a good deal of discussion followed on a recent decision of the referee in a match played between Ponsonby and Shore, and as the incidents mentioned are likely to occur at any time in a local game, they are set out below for tbe benefit of players and officials. The writer states: “The referee ordered a penalty kick, from which Shore scored, to be retaken, and on the second kick the Ponsonby goalie a brilliant save. The referee stated, after the match, that his reason for ordering the retaking of the kick was because one of the Shore players was inside the penalty area when tbe kick was taken. Careful perusal, however, of the Referees’ Chart, 1929-30, gives the referee no such authority, and it is not stated in the wording of the law, the official decisions, instructions to referees, or in instructions to players that in the event of a goal being scored such score shall be nullified owing to a player of the attacking side having been across the line. The wording of the law states clearly that “all players, with the exception of the player taking the kick and the opponents’ goalkeeper, shall be within the field of play but outside the penalty area, and at least ten yards from where the kick is being taken.” Instructions to referees states: “Until the referee has satisfied himself that the players are in their proper positions, he should not give the signal for tbe kick to be taken. Any player wilfully encroaching should first be cautioned, and on a repetition of the offence be ordered off the field.” Nowhere, however, is it laid down in the laws of “ Soccer that a kick from which a goal has been scored shall be retaken because a player of the same side as the player taking the kick has not been in his proper place outside the line. The law clearly throws the onus on the referee to see-that the players are in their proper positions, and when he satisfies himself that this condition-has been complied with he gives the signal for the kick, which is the whistle. It is not the actual kicking that is the signal. Law 17 states: “A place kick, a free kick, or a penalty kick must not be taken until the referee has given the signal for the same.” Consequently, if the referee is satisfied, as he must be under the law, that all the players are in their proper positions outside the “ penalty box ” be- , fore he blows his whistle, then the fact that a player steps oyer the line after that signal has been given can hardly be considered justification to order the retaking of the kick. Furthermore, if the referee has erred in not making sure that the players are standing where the law prescribes they ought, it is harsh injustice that a side should suffer for that negligence. So far as the defending side, which is the offending side where a penalty kick is given, is concerned, it is clearly stated that no previous infringement of the penalty law shall nullify a score. If the goalkeeper infringes by jumping about, for instance, and a goal is scored, the goal must be given, but if a goal is not scored the kick must be retaken. It will be noticed that the law provides a penal clause in the event of persistent encroaching in the penalty area by a player, which further goes to support the contention that under the laws the players are assumed to be all in their legal positions ere the signal for the kick is given, and there is nothing in the Referees’ Chart to authorise the retaking of a penalty for a player of the attacking side having encroached, it seems as though Referee Parkinson was wrong in disallowing Hie goal scored in the first instance by North Shore in the ease quoted above. /