"NO DICTATION"

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 16705, 24 July 1928, Page 12

"NO DICTATION"

REFEREES AND UNION OFFENCES AND PENALTIES That the Poverty Bay Rugby Union's treatment of players charged with various offences against (he Rugby code has been inconsistent was the Burden of a letter received by the Union last evening from the Poverty Bay Rugby Referees' Associaticjji. The letter asked that in future, the union apply its penalties with consistency, so that they would deter players and spectators who arc likely to forget the spirit of fair play. The chairman of the Union, Mr. A. S. Parker, regarded the recommendation as being, beyond the scope of the Referees' Association, and he claimed that the referees had no right to dictate to the parent body a-s to its course with offenders. In the course of the Referees' Association's letter, it was pointed out that quite an outcry had been raised on the subject of rough play, and that three players charged with this offence had been suspended by the union for only one playing Saturday each. There followed the case of a sub-union player, who was charged with insulting behaviour, and' he had been suspended during the pleasure of the union, a penalty which the Referees' Association considered to be quite appropriate. The latest case, however, had gone further still, the player in question being charged with using threatening behaviour to the referee; the penalty in this case was merely suspension for the balance of the season. Compared with that inflicted on a spectator some two years ago for threatening the chairman, namely suspension of the right to enter Dugb'y grounds for life, the penalty imposed' on the player for threatening the referee was not excessive.

The attention of the union was called to the fact that in September, 1924, the union had intimated it was prepared to afford the utmost protection to the referees, both on and off the field, in matters relevant to any match, and would deal very' firmly with any rase where insults have been offered. The letter closed with the expression of a hope that any further punishments imposed by the'Union would lie consistent with that promise, and such as to deter players or spectators who were likely to forget the British spirit of fair play. '"'UNION DOING ITS BEST" Having heard the letter read, Mr. Parker remarked that it was not for the Referees' Association to be dictating to the Union. He thought the union knew what it was doing. Tho \;iew taken by the deputy chairman and treasurer of the union, Mr. .leune, was that the letter should be received, and the Referees' Association be given an assurance that it still enjoyed the full support of the union. Mr. '.leune moved to that effect, and Mr. W. E. Bullivanfc seconded his motion.

Mr. Parker protested that the letter appeared to be dictatorial, and he averred that if the union was not doing the right thing, it was not for want of trying. The association must know that the union was doing its best. Commenting on the comparison of penalties made in the referees' letter, Mr. Jeune said it did not follow that the punishment of an offence should lie increased each time the, union received a complaint. The circumstances of the various cases should govern the penalties.

Exception was taken by Mr. 11. Hunter, the referees' representative on the union, to the chairman's inference that tho referees had gone beyond their rights in forwarding the letter. The referees had to bear the brunt of the insults on the field, and while the union members might do a great deal of work and take some of the kicks, thev did not have to take the field every Saturday and submit to criticism and insult as did the referees. He did not think the letter at all cheeky, though hewould not say that the union was not carrying out its duty. He was aware, however, that if the offences were repeated without adequate penalties being imposed, two or three of the best local referees would resign.

"That would be holding a revolver to our heads," remarked the chairman. "Surely the association knows that the union is doing its best." At this stage Mr. Jeune withdrew his motion, and the letter was received, the discussion being dropped.