FOOTBALL.

Otago Witness, Issue 2379, 5 October 1899, Page 42

FOOTBALL.

SJOTES BY FORWARD.

The total amount received by the Otago Rugby Football Union from the sale of tickets and from special contributions towards the Armil fund has now been ascertained at £534- 6s 6d A member of the committee has received a letter from Taranaki intimating that in all probability a sum of £100 will be raised in that district in aid of the fund.

To prevent the encroaohmenL of the football season upon the cricket season, the metropolitan branch of the New South Wales Rugby Union has decided to eliminate the last round of matches from the premiership programme, and this has left the Wallaroo Club the winner of the premiership for 1899. The competition was inaugurated in 1874, when Waratah won it, in 1875 Balmain was at the top of the list, and from 1876 to 1880 Wallaroo was premier. It was, however, not until 1892 that Wallaroo again occupied the position, and then it was only for that year. Since then the present is the first occasion that the club has been in the lead.

Several proposals for alterations in the laws ■of the game were to be made at the annual general meeting of the English Rugby Union, which was fixed to be held on the 21st ult. In law 11, specifying breaches of the game for which free lacks shall be awarded by way of penalties, it is proposed to add three new subsections. If they are adopted — as in all probability they have been by this time, as they are proposed by the committee of the union with the approval of the International Board — it will henceforth be an infringement, punishable by the penalty of a free kick, if a player wilfully holds an opponent who has not got the ball, or wilfully hacks, hacks-over, or trips up, or shouts "all on side," or words to that effect, when his players are not on side. On the other hand it is proposed to abolish the penalty for lifting a foot from the ground m a scrummage before the ball lias been put in.

The only comment which aeems to be necessary on the following paragraph from the Auckland Evening Stur is that the portion which relates to Dunedin has no foundation in fact: — "Two amusing and somewhat similar stories are told in connection with the recent tour of an Auckland football team through the south. The first little incident I occurred during the Ihmedin match. A wellknown three-quarter back of the team was unfortunately too unwell to play, and had undertaken the office of line umpire for his side. He discharged his duties impartially till a fine run in his vicinity carried him out of himself. Dropping the line flag he rwhecl on to the field, and getting into a good position, yelled to the man with the "ball to paw. The latter, however, was collared, and the enthu-i-astic three-quarter, being ghen time to think, remembered his deserted post, and amidst shouts of laughter from the crowd went back to his work as line umpire. The forgetful-, ness which is the groundwork of the other story might have ended more seriously for Auckland. It was in the Tarauaki match. A forward who was not playing was entrusted by the northern team with their share of line umpiring. The three-quarter who ivas responsible for the diversion in the Dunedin match was making a mof»t brilliant run with every promise of scoring. The line man's blood tingled in his veins, aud excitement getting the upper hand he tore down the field, emitting encouraging shouts and waving the flag in jubilation. Just as the three-quarter had passed the last man and a score was inevitable the referee, caught a glimpse of the waving flag and of course blew his whistle and stopped the game. By the rules the line flag must only be raised when a man goes out of bounds. \Vhen the focL that lie had his flag aloft was pointed out to Auckland's enthusiastic line man and he learned that the ball had to be brought back and a certain try was spoilt his chagrin can be better imagined than de- ; scribed." '

Last week's meeting of the committee of the Otago Rugby Union \\a» attended hy Messrs Gallaway, Morris, Campbell, Duncan, Strong, and Hutchison, liie sub-com-mittee appointed to inquire into the complaint lodged by Mr Allan Johnston of incivility on the part of gatemen at the Caledonian ground submitted their report, the effect of which was that the evidence did not show that the language Used by the gatemen warf not justified. It was decided to apply to the New Zealand Union for the O.R.F. U.s proportion (£lO 7<-) of the levy that was made in 1E95. Loiters wero read from t\e Canterbury Rugby Union and from the Stirling* Football Club enclosing remittances for £22 3s and £3 5s 6d respectively in aid of the Armit fund. A meeting of the committee of the Otago Rugby Union, held on Monday, was attended by Messrs Gallaway (president), Campbell, Duncan, Har^i.s, M'Laren, Payne, Strong, Young, and Hutchison. A letter waa read -fiom the Kaikorai Club, in reply to one from the union requesting that the flag won by that club in 1E95 be returned, so that the club's name be inscribed on it as the winner of the banner in 1199. In effect, the Kaikorai Club claimed to have absolutely won the flag that was offered in 1895, and requested . delivery of the first grade banner for 1899. It was resolved to write to the Kaikorai Club demanding possession of the banner, and to inform the club that, failing the flag being returned, no banner would be awarded for 1899, and that the matter would bo referred to the annual meeting of delegates. A letter W*m read from the Wellington Rugby Union

enclosing a cheque for £20 towards the Armit fund, and a letter from the Huddart, Parker, and Co. Proprietary Company, enclosing a cheque for £5 2s, representing the proceeds received for admission to the s.s. Zealandia. A contribution of 13s from Mr W. L. Philp to the fund was reported. Accounts were passed for payment to the amount of £105.

Two members of the Engligh football team, which recently toured Australia, Messrs Adamson and Nicholls, are said to have accepted positions in the Government Savings, Bank at Brisbane.

At a meeting of the Management Committee of the New Zealand Rugby Union last week, it was decided to ask Mr W. J. Lewis, of Temuka, who appointed him referee for the Otago-Auckland match, and on receipt of that gentleman's reply to inform the Otago Union that the New Zealand Union had not selected that gentleman for the position. The secretary was directed to ask the Canterbury and Southland Unions why Mr D. Torrance, who was not a recognised referee, had been appointed referee in the Southland-Canter-bury match.. It was decided to inform the Otago Union that the New Zealand Union could not hold an inquiry into reflections cast upon a certain referee. A bonus of £10 10s was voted to the hon. secretary (Mr A. M. De Costa) for his four years' work.

There is evidently no keen interest taken in the proposals, mostly silly, for amendments in the laws of the game which some months ago emanated from a self-constituted committee in Wellington. Three or four attempts to- obtain a meeting of delegates of the NewZealand Union to consider the Appeal Committee's report on, the projfopals have failed, no quorum attending, and itr-ha» now been decided by the .Management Committee of that union that the proposed amendments, together' with the suggestions of the Appeal Committee in reference thereto, shall be sent direct to the English Rugby Union. The project of some festive speculators to run for their own profit a. trip by a New Zealand football team to Grreat»Britain has been liberally douched with cold water. At a meeting of the Management Committee of the New Zealand Union last week, it was reported that the Auckland, Wellington, Southland, Hawke's Bay, Marlborough, Canterbury, Nelson, and Wairarapa Unions favoured the proposal to send a team to Great Britain, provided the trip was made under the management of the New Zealand Union, but that the Otago Union was averse to the scheme. IL was decided to inform the originator of the idea that the New Zealand Union "favoured the sending of a team to England provided that it had the entire management and control of the team. This, of course, kills the scheme, for the New Zealand union is not in a position to finance such a trip, and it is a very good thins? that it is not, for it is idle to suppose .that, the mo3t prominent exponents of the game in New Zealand being working meu, the majority of the members of a representative team' chosen to go to England could go without forfeiting tiieir amateur status, and being thus rendered ineligible to play.

In this connection my attention has been directed to some 'stupid remarks by a contributor" to a northern paper. This writer says: " To read the remarks of the officials of some unions, one would imagine that professionalism was as strange to them as the North Pole. The rules of professionalism may not be understood by these officials, but perhaps that is the reason for their opposition. Does it not occur to the objectors to the schome that nearly every union in this colony has at one time or another committed acts which would disqualify Ihem on the ground of profeo>ionali«m? '' If it is true that uniqns have committed acts of professionalism it is" desirable that they should be exposed. It is doubtful, however, whether this writer understands the subject, for lie goes on to say : "There is scarcely a union in the colony that would not, if Ihp rules were strictly interpreted, be disqualified by the English governing body, inasmuch as they have at one time or another — (1) Given compensation for training, paid for the services of a qualified trainer, or for travelling expenses to or from a training resort ; (2) taken gate-money at a ground in a match where it was previously agreed upon that less than 15 players took port ; (3) allowing its ground to be used for a benefit match connected directly or indirectly with football. The Otago Union, which is protesting so loudly a«oinst professionalism and is ever ready to throw cold water on a scheme for tho betterment of football outbido its own province, has just rendered itself liable to expulsion by permitting its ground to be used as a benefit match counected directly or indirectly with the game, though the object wai in itself a praiseworthy one. It may be that .there are unions which have paid the e\pen=p«i of wlayers in connection with training. If so, I have 'not heard of them. And the writer who makes thi« charge is perhaps not aware that a Rugby Union 'n the color-y is entitled to permit the playing of matches iT which less than fifteen players a-side take part. Most stupid of all is the assertion that the Otago Union infringed the laws by deciding that the match between tho Auckbnd nnd Otajro teams should be the Armit benefit match. Tho Otugo Union had as much right to decide and announce beforehand that the proceeds of that match would bo handed to Mrs Armit a= it would have had to decide that the proceeds should be given to a hospital or benevolent institution or any nublie charily. If the argument that the O.Pt.F.U. committed a breach of professionalism in this case had any weight at all, the English Rugby Union would' itself come within the scope of the criticism. Its last balance-sheet shows the following disbursements: — Kaye's widow and children (Yorkshire), £25 ; metropolitan charities. £75 : Exeter and Devon Hospital, £15; Carli'-le Infirmary, £10. The test as to

whether a payment by a \mion or club is permissible or not is a simple one. Is the recipient obtaining the payment as a reward for past services or in anticipation of future services in connection with football? In the case of the Armit benefit match such a suggestion is absurd. The Otago Union was careful to make it clear that the benefit was no 6 for poor Armit, to whom indeed I regret to say it would be of no service, but that the proceeds were to be handed to his mother.