CONTROL OF REFEREES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22212, 15 March 1934, Page 15

CONTROL OF REFEREES

TO THE EDITOR

Sir, —In my previous letter I asked for more information regarding the above question, and a public statement from the Rugby Union. I have to thank " Daylight " for coming to the assistance of this "timid" body. That the Otago Union has nothing to do with the proposed change would be pleasing to know if the statement was to come openly from that union rather than from " Daylight." Then again let me assure " Daylight" that as I was not present at the Alhambra Club's annual meeting, and as no statement from Mr John Mitchell appeared ju your issue of March 9 bearing on Mr Sutherland's remarks at this meeting, will " Daylight" enlighten the writer where the side-stepping was done? Since "Daylight " has taken up the cudgels on behalf of the Rugby Union will he definitely state that this proposed change was not discussed by the Rugby Union, in "committee "? Will he also advise as to what led up to the Referees' Association holding a meeting regarding this matter on Saturday, March 3. It is rather unfortunate for " Daylight" that Mr C. Sonntag, a member of the Rugby Union, mentioned at the annual meeting of the Kaikorai Club, as reported in your issue of March 13, that he had ascertained the reason of the proposed, change, etc. Will " Daylight" also advise as to whom Mr Sonntag went for his information? In your report bearing on the discussion at the Southern Club's annual meeting Mr Pearson, a member of the Rugby Union, is reported as follows:—" It had been evident for several years past that' something should be done in the matter, etc." Now, such a statement from a member of the" Rugby Union, and coming from one who had recently represented the Rugby Union on the Referees' Appointment Board, is simply astounding. Mr Pearson actually admits that while he was a member of the Appointment Board there was something wrong. I wonder if "Daylight" will agree that there was something wrong when Mr Pearson was on the board? Contrast this statement with the remarks of Mr J. Sutherland as to who was capable of appointing referees. Will " Daylight"- state if any official report was made by Mr Pearson to the parent body that all was not well with the Appointment Board while he was a member? Mr V. G. Cavanagh's remarks at the Southern Club's annual meeting certainly make interesting reading. As reported, this gentleman stated that the proposed change would allow the good referees to control the senior matches only, and not all grades. In other words —in Mr Cavanagh's opinion—the junior grades do not require good referees. Might I inform this gentleman that the junior grades are entitled to have equally good, if not better, l-eferees than the senior games. To educate the juniors we cannot let that education suffer in order to allow the senior players undue consideration. Possibly that is really wrong with our football—we have been concentrating too much on senior football at the expense of the juniors. With regard_ to "Daylight's" caustic comment regarding the disgruntled element of the Referees' Association, I would like to state that I have no knowledge that such is the case, but having attended many meetings of the association, and listened to lectures, discussion of- rules, etc., and realised the high standard of such debates, I cannot conscientiously think that auch a body would tolerate any disgruntled members. Perhaps "Daylight" may have gained his information from possibly an ex-member of the Referees' Association who joined thinking he should receive a match on Carisbrook the first Saturday he was appointed, and, having failed to be go appointed, resigned from the association. " Daylight" talks about the egoism of referees running games by hopeless con. trol. I cannot reconcile such a statement with that of my experience with our referees; Of course, my experience has been with the referees as a body, not, perhaps, as in the case of " Daylight," the outcome of street-corner talk with an ex-member of the calibre as outlined above. I thank " Daylight" for hisinvitation to the " certain shelter shed," but, having had & sample of the standard of debate (so kindly provided by " Daylight".) that one would expect at the discussion, I decline, as I realise that, where thick fog is prevalent, a searchlight would be out of keeping.—l am, etc., Searchlight. Dunedin, March 13. TO THE EMTOB. . Sir, —I understand that the majority of our football clubs feel that in the best interests of the game a change is necessary in the method of appointing referees. I am informed that this is the true position. Why, then, do Messrs Herd, Rennick. and Sutherland set out to abuse the members of the 0.R.F.U.? Have these gentlemen a personal grouch? I do not profess to be in close touch with the doings of the Referees' Association, but it strikes me forcibly that when the president, Mr Herd, talks of strikes and other prominent members of the association, Mr Rennick and Mr Sutherland, openly insult our governing body, it is evident a change is not only desirable, but a necessity.—l am, etc., Only a Spectator.