ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23811, 18 May 1939, Page 4

ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL

By Comer-kick

JONES TROPHY June s.—Canterbury v. Otago, at Dunedin, With the first four matches in the Fletcher Cup competition played, Northern with four wins to its credit are on top at present, being followed by Mosgiel (6 points), which had the bye on Saturday. SeaclitT. Maori Hill, Caversham. and Old Boys are next on the table, each with four points, and of the remaining three teams, Mornington, Roslyn-Wakari. and Technical, the first-named is the only one to have a win to its credit. The draw for Saturday brings together Northern and Seacliff. to be played at Logan Park, Technical v. Old Boys at the Oval, Mosgiel v. Mornington at Mosgiel, and Maori Hill v. RoslynWakari at Prospect Park. NORTHERN LUCKY “ Soccer ” enthusiasts found plenty to interest them at Logan Park on Saturoay, with the meeting between Northern and Caversham. For its second year in the senior division, the young Caversham Club has shown distinct promise, and with the defeat of Maori Hill already to its credit, the south-end team was expected to give Northern a good run. In this it did not disappoint the spectators, and in the final result was unlucky not to share the points—through a penalty goal In the last few miniutes of play. Facing a steady breeze in the first spell. Northern by sound backing up not only held Caversham. but scored two goals—as many as its opponent’s. It was in the .econd spell ihat the Black and Whites went to pieces, the Caversham players’ fast and nippy work having them rattled for most of the period. McFarlane, the outside right, was its most dangerous player at this stage, and curiously enougn he was not played to to the same extent as the left wing. Caversham, as at present composed, represent a fairly balanced side, the transfer of Bennett from centre-half to left full-back having strengthened the defence. This player received well-merited applause for his saving of a certain goal on one of the occasions that Stevenson strayed too far out of position. With the wind behind them, Caversham’s half line should have played closer up to the forwards to lend support to the attack and when the occasion offered to essay a shot at goal. A surprise shot is always liable to count, as both C. Skinner and W. Chapman have demonstrated in the past. Neither of the goalies displayed confidence, both being hesitant in clearing. Stevenson, in his efforts to clear by bouncing the ball, was often caught in possession, and the final goal which cost his side the match was the direct result of this weakness. Robb and Bennett were a better pair of defenders than Bennie and J. Ander son, the latter pair, especially in the second half, losing touch with each other. On the day there was little between either sets of halves. Northern’s trio were superior in the first half, but slumped badly in the second. Both Gordon and Sutherland were outpaced by the opposing wingers, whilst Buchanan had difficulty in holding the Gilchrist brothers. In common with a majority of the players Buchanan misjudged the strength of the wind, many of his passes going too far ahead of the forwards. Truesdale. righthalf. and O’Neill, centre, were the best of the Caversham line. N. Williams being less successful against Northern’s right winger. Neither in forward play was there a great deal of difference, both vans displaying bright patches of combined work at times. In front of goal. Northern was more thrustful, Caversham’s inside players being inclined to work too close before attempting to shoot. McFarlane was the outstanding forward afield, He positions himself well for a prospective pass, and rarely failed to part with the ball with a definite object in view. McLean at centre played well, and his distribution of the ball showed better direction than in the previous week’s game. Both Todd and McSkimming. on the right and left wing, respectively, were outstanding for Caversham, whilst, the opening up work of the Gilchrist brothers was always in evidence in attacking movements. With honours fluctuating and the issue in doubt right up to the close, spectators were provided with fast, exciting play, the best of the season so far. and, as a result, Caversham definitely established themselves as worthy of senior rank. On Saturday’s play it should win a majority of its games.

MORNINGTON v. ROSLYN-WAKARI This game was not productive of good football, the strong wind having a decided adverse effect on the>play. Mornington deserved the points, as it made good use of the chances that came its way. On the other hand, Roslyn. though the more aggressive, lost rnany opportunities through poor shooting and lack of cohesion between backs and forwards. With the wind in the first spell they should have had a good lead before the change over. Lack of training was noticeable in the play—not a very good augury for the remaining games. Mornington. though not brilliant, showed better combination. and it was only the solid defence of the White’s full-backs that keot them from scoring on many occasions. For the winners Martin had some fine saves to his credit, handling well and clearing his lines. Simpson and Schofield defended well, and supplied those in front with plenty of the ball. Of the mid-line Murphy was the pick, and he was ably supported by Harrison and Webster. In the front rank, Cope and Agnew were always dangerous. and showed up the weakness of their opponents’ half line. Lawton played a very serviceable game, whilst the wingers. Webster and Harrison, sent in many fine crosses. For the losers Cooper saved well, his handling being very clean, and had no chance with w’ at got past him. Simpson and Nees had a busy day. The young right back is improving in every game, and has a good kick, whilst, his partner. Nees. was easily best back afield. Of a poor half line E. Smyth was again the best of the trio. His brother and Welham were often caught in possession In the front rank Rutherford, in his usual position, was the best winger on view. Wilson did not play his usual steady game. He and the centre. Chisholm, were more than often crowding each other although the latter's goal was well taken. McCallion and Ramsay failed to judge the strength of the wind, and on many occasions allowed the ball to overrun them. Mornington are to be congratulated on gaining their first points for the season. TECHNICAL v. MAORI HILL This game, which was played on the Oval, was not as one-sided as the score f6 —0) in favour of Maori Hill would indicate. Technical failed to take advantage of many opportunities, mainly through lack of finish in front of the goal. Hill however, were much the better side, displaying fine cohesion The strong cross wind proved a source of trouble to the less experienced College players The re-appearance ot G. Taylor at right full-back for the Hill has steadied up the side, and in addition the transference of Mills to the front line imparted more thrust to the attack Balk was an absentee. Li'"e filling the vacancy As ajine the forwards functioned well, with Mills Romerd and Little being the best Technical although lacking the ability of its opponents, played gamely throughout and made the game ,of sufficient interest to the spectators The side was well served bv Fleming in goal, and Duerdon was outstanding at full-back. Breese was the. best of the halves. Out the forwards generally played without understanding with the exception of O’Malley and Chapman, who shared the honours.

REFEREES’ CLUB NOTES Mr Fred Stanley, last year’s president, is at present a patient in the Dominion Ward of the Dunedin Hospital. It is the sincere hope of all referees, players, and supporters that Mr Stanley’s recovery will be a speedy and complete one. LAWS OF THE GAME CONCERNING THE GOAL-KEEPER 1. He is required to wear colours distinguishing him from the other players. 2. He is permitted to handle the ball within his own penalty area. There are, however, two exceptions to this rule which should be noted. It is not permissible: (a) For a goalkeeper to receive the ball into his hands from a goal-kick or (b) from a free kick taken by the defending side within the penalty area by another player in order that he may kick it into play. The ball must be kicked direct into play, and if not kicked beyond the penalty area the kick should be retaken. 3. He may not be charged unless (.a) he is in possession of the ball; (b) he is obstructing an opponent: (c) he is outside his own goal area. If a goalkeeper obstructs an opponent he may be charged even although he is in his own goal area. In his own goal area, then, a goal-keeper may not be charged unless for reasons set out in 3. Out of his goal area, but still in his penalty area he may still handle the ball, but he may be charged even although he is not in possession Out of his penalty area his privileges as a goal-keeper cease. He may not handle the ball, and he. of, course, may be charged just like any other player. 4. He is not permitted to carry the ball. Carrying the ball is taking more than four steps while holding the ball or bouncing it on the hand. 5. When a goal-keeper is in possession of the ball, it is not permissible for a player to kick or attempt to kick the ball under such circumstances. '6. A goal-keeper may be changed during the game., but notice of such change must be given to the referee. PUNISHMENTS 1. If a goal-keeper receives the ball into his hands from a goal-keeper, or from a free kick within the penalty area, the kick shall be retaken. 2. If a goal-keeper, in his goal area, not in possession of the ball and not obstructing an opponent is charged, an indirect free kick shall be awarded. 3. If a goal-keeper handles the ball outside the penalty area, a direct free kick shall be awarded. 4. If a goal-keeper carries the ball, the punishment shall be an indirect free kick. 5. The punishment for kicking or attempting to kick the ball when it is held by the goal-keeper is an indirect free kick 6. If a goal-keeper has been changed during the game and the referee not notified and the new goal-keeper handles the ball within the penally area, the penalty kick would be awarded. A direct free kick is one from which a goal may be scored direct, whether the ball touches a player of either side or not. With an indirect free kick the ball must be played by another olaver before a goal would be allowed. For example:—The goal-keeper is penalised for carrying the ball The ball is kicked direct into the net The decision would not be a goal, but a goal kick the ball not having been •■'laved bv another player So much for the goal-keeper. As an active referee. I find that quite a number of players and spectators, too. are not at. all clear -m what is meant by •‘handling" the ball. The appeal for •‘hands” is far too common, so in next week’s notes I will endeavour to clear up this apparent misunderstanding.