Athletic Dispute.

Southland Times, Issue 19726, 29 January 1906, Page 2

Athletic Dispute.

■JtfDbMENT IN EDENDALE SHEFFIELD APPEAL. CASE. With reference to the above the following’’ decision wan ‘arrived at by the South--land Athletic Association on Friday evening. The judgment is of importance-to athletic bodies anti athletes generally ns dealing with a class of case that not infrequently arises al sports meetings This practically as appeal from tine decision of the Ed on dale Spirts Committee or the stewards of the Society, in allowing one of the competitors, Brown, to start in the final, ho having run third in the semi-final. The appeal is lodged by Dodds, who ran oucond in the final. From - the largo amount of evidence taken at I a meeting of tho Sports' Society, together with the outside evidence, it appears that a protest was duly lodged by Brown against Baird for having in the somi-flnal started from ibo 14 > mils’ mark instead of from the nine yards, ho being placed on tho 14 ynrds'limit by certain officials through mistake. The questions for our decision ore (a) Was Baird justified in Inking advantage of tho mistake ? (hj) Were the stewards or officials justified fn allowing Brown to start in tho final ? According to fie evidence of the handienpper, Air E. (5. Mocpheraon, Baird's limit was nine yards, and this information, strictly speaking, should l>e in tho v possession of tho officials acting ns “ marksmen." However, it appears that the handlcappcr, on Iding appealed to announced ”14 yards,” instead of " nine yards ” as Baird’s handicap, and ho was placed on the more advantageous mark accordingly. But this did not entitle Baird to escape the eonsequences of Rule 21, which states " it shall he the duty of each competitor to

see that he starts from his proper mark, and in default lie may ho disqualified.” It cannot, lie fairly d sputed that a competitor seldom or no or faces the starter without knowing his handicap exactly. In foci, from the evidence of tie stnstM’, Mr T. Marshall, Baird, although offered the 14 yards, did not take the fait measurement', which se in to indicate a doubt in Ins mind about., the safely of such a proceeding. It is quite natural to take e\ory available advantage on such occasions as this, and by taking advantage of the palpable mista' e of the gent'e'.ncn who instructed the starter Baird only did what is the impulse of human nntu’-e. Concerning the second part of the qicslion we consider it unfair and unreasonable to suppose that Brown should he debarred from compel ing in the final through the actions or omissions of other I oop*?, and we must hold that the difference between Baird’s real and actual starting points might have affected Brown’s position in the semi-final. Fader I lie circumstances we consider the committee or responsible officials wore ■lerf.ctly just ifei in allowing both Baird and Brown to compete in the final as well ns McLaughlin, Dodds, and Hannah, as, where (he nature r f a protest prevents an immediate decision, the competitor should he allowed to compete under protest and this, in our opinion, fully entitles the next man in the race to compete in the final as if he had been a placed competitor. Certainly the procedure adopted by the committee or olhcinls in authority was a Title unusual, hat there is no ntstfiking tho intention and Bale r>2 exactly meets the rose. Tho content ion that the track officials can adjudicate in such matter mast fail. Not only the rales of this Association, the 'hose of the Caledonian Ars.icialion, ills Teague of Wheelmen and Hie Australian Athletic Tnion, together with the racing taws of tile recently formed Athletic 1 ninn of N./.., materially ass'st us in coming to Hits conclusion. Several of the suggestions put forward do not hear on the subject mutter of the case and need no comment. After careful consideration the Council is of opinion that Brown rightly compelod in the final. and is entitled to first prize money, £.").