SOCCER

Southland Times, Issue 20201, 11 June 1927, Page 18 (Supplement)

SOCCER

(By “Pioneer”) The following is the itinerary for the remaining matches of the Canadian team’s tour:— June 11 (Saturday)—Versus Buller, at Westport. June 15 (Wednesday)—Versus Westland, at Greymouth. June 18 (Saturday)—Canterbury at Christchurch. June 22 (Wednesday)—Versus Otago at Dunedin. June 25 (Saturday)—Versus New Zealand, at Dunedin (first test). June 29 (Wednesday)—Versus Southland at Invercargill. July 2 (Saturday)—Versus New Zealand, at Christchurch (second test). July 6 (Wednesday)—Versus South Canterbury, at Timaru. July 9 (Saturday)—Versus New Zealand, at Wellington (third test). July 13 (Wednesday)—Versus Hawke’s Bay, at Hastings. July 16 (Saturday)—Versus Poverty Bay, at Gisborne. July 20 (Wednesday)—Versus South Auckland, at Hamilton. July 23 (Saturday)—Versus New Zealand at Auckland (fourth test). July 27 (Wednesday)—Versus North Auckland, at Whangarei. July 30 (Saturday)—Versus Auckland, at Auckland. Trial game to-day. No defaults please. Selectors will have busy day. A Team looks hot stuff side. Last Saturday’s game proved a good draw. Congratulations to Corinthians on a well earned win. Rangers put up a good fight against Mataura and were not disgraced. Mr. G. E. Pollock had the players well in hand on Saturday and there was very little talking—an annoying habit that needed squashing. Corinthians deserved their win on Saturday. In the first spell they played good football combining together with rare judgment. Invercargill had a day off—nobody seemed to be able to do a thing right. For all that could they only have taken advantage of their many chances the result would have been different. Fitzpatrick in goal saved several difficult shots. Those that got past gave him no chance. Smith did not play with his usual dash, an injured ankle no doubt accounting for this. Reddington put in some good shots though at other times he was well astray. Elley should use his speed more and not wait until reaching the corner before centering—several good chances were lost like this. Corinthians half line on Saturday, McMurdo, McKay and McDonald—hoots mun! But the Northern Club in Dunedin can go one better. Their forward line reads.—McCormack, McLean, McDowell, McHugh, McTavish. “Andy” Cathcart played his usual solid game—a hard man to beat. McKay is still a stumbling block to his opponents—solid all the time,

A treasure found at last —Mr. Pollock as referee. He was all that could be desired on Saturday and stood no nonsense. The playing area was neatly marked out on Saturday and proved a boon. Thanks are due Mr. Holding for this. He is indeed, a useful member. The Southland Association has made a forward move in appointing a committee to interview the Education Board re Association in Schools and the reply will be awaited with interest. If we can interest the younger generation in our game and keep them after leaving school then indeed is Soccer going to flourish in Invercargill. Rangers and Mat aura had an interesting and well contested go at Mataura. Some smart work was shown by both sides and play at times reached a high standard. Doig played a solid game for the town team while Maxwell gave his usual finished exhibition. Ramsay was again in the limelight for the home side and there is no doubt he is a classy half back. Brownsie made a welcome reappearance on the field and although obviously out of training was responsible for some clever work. Todd as usual proved troublesome to the opposing backs. Cullen’s display was a big improvement on his game against Invercargill. A strange dismissal recently occurred in English football, at the Sheffield United where Stanley Davies, the versatile forward 6f West Bromwich Albion and Wales, was ordered off by the referee on a charge of having removed the ball after it had been placed for a free-kick. It was held that Davies twice moved the ball after the referee had placed it in position, and the official indicted the inaximum*punishment, presumably after administering a caution, for ungentlemanly conduct. Without venturing an opinion on the Sheffield incident, remarked an English football writer, it may be said that the childish practice of moving the ball a few yards forward or backward after it has been set for a free-kick has become all too common among players, and that the game must be protected from such indignities. It is not generally realised that under the auspices of the A.F.A. the only Maori soccer team in New Zealand is playing week after week. The round ball game has been adopted by the boys of the St. Stephen’s school, and the team that has been got together promises, by the end of the season, to contain many capable exponents of the game. So far they have quite held their own in the secondary school competition, which is also the first of its kind in the country, and the advent of the Maori boys into soccer is an indication of the spread of the code. Some players will insist on appealing. There is nothing in the laws of the game which slates that a player shall not appeal, but law 13 has a bearing on this. Players shall not appeal for foul, or hands, etc. There is nothing wrong with appealing until a player or players make a practice of “squealing” on all occasions, with the full intention of upsetting the referee. If the referee decides that a player is in-

tentionally making a nuisance of himself by appealing, the referee has full power to treat the offence as ungentlemanly conduct. The off-side law, more than any other is thex cause of much discussion. During the heat of the game, players apparently forget themselves. That, at any rate, is the most charitable explanation. There is far too great a tendency to dispute the referee’s decision. The law states quite clearly that if a player inquires from the referee for any decision the referee must give a proper answer, but the same law states distinctly that no player must question or dispute a decision, any such questioning or disputing with the referee should be treated as ungentlemanly conduct. Reterees should or will explain a decision if courteously asked. Don’t try to argue with the referee, never forget that the least said is the soonest mended both on the field and in the dressing

THE CANADIANS WELLINGTON MATCH. The Canadian team thoroughly justified the fine reputation which had preceded them. Their first few minutes in action revealed a side polished in footwork and constructiveness, says the Dominion. Wellington’s chances of making history faded considerably in the first fifteen minutes. Canada’s win was chiefly due to the efficiency of their attack. It was just in this department that Wellington signallyfailed. There was no marksman of note among the forwards. One glorious opportunity came the home side’s way in the second half. An untenanted goal was there for Marshment or Lothian to send the ball into, but both failed. The shooting right through of the Wellington forwards was atrocious. So far as the goalkeepers are concerned, there was little to choose from between Tait and Bentley. The Canadian gave a more finished display, but he had not the deadly shots to contend with that Bentley had. The Wellington 'keeper truly carried his spurs and thoroughly justified his choice by the selectors. Tait’s handling of the ball was indeed polished, and his clearances were sure and rarely got his side into difficulties. Crawley and Edmonds put up a great defence for Canada, the former especially was sure and much too good for Wellington’s left wing. Their tackling was clean and they placed the ball nicely to the wings. On the home side, Gibb took the greatest share of the work and equalled the Can adian backs in his tackling. He had a big share in keeping Canada’s score so low. McGirr was not very happy in the first half and frequently played 100 deep. However,- he made amends after the change over and did much to break up the movements of Davidson and Turner. The visitors’ halves were a fine trio, and their skill in tackling was great,

They did not hesitate to pass to their backs if in a better position than themselves. Brolly was much too skilful for Rigby, the Wellington centre. The home half-back line was not a happy family. Burke was the only one who justified his selection. The Canadian right-wingers must have found him a tough proposition. He was right at the top of his form, and gave his clubmates every opportunity, but they let him down badly. Haines was spasmodic and his play was disappointing. He gave the Canadian inside men far too much elbow room. McKee was out of place, and although he was responsible for one or two of Wellington’s openings he did not show his true form. It was unfortunate for Canada’s front line that Gibson was hurt in the opening minutes of the game. Although the change must have upset the line to some extent, there was a pleasing collaboration between the inside forwards. They beat their opponents more by skill than speed. Turner was the best of a brilliant line. Had Gibson been able to stay in the centre the victory might not have been so narrow. They were a fine balanced lot, and shot for goal at every opportunity. What might the Wellington forward line have been with Ballard on the left and Nicolle on the right ? This was Wellington’s weakest point, and only Lothian and Barton approached “rep.” standard. It was not of a very high order, but they were the best of a poor lot. Rigby’s lack of control lost Wellington many promising openings, especially in the second half, when Wellington had a big share in the game. The Marist triangle was a failure, for neither Cudby nor Marchmen t made anything of the openings initiated so well by their club-mate Burke. On the whole the Wellington team gave a better game than expected, and had the shooting been better would at least have pierced Canada’s last line of defence on one occasion. Canada’s win was well deserved.

LAWS OF THE GAME “Goalie,” of the Dominion, is indebted to a well-known and capable Wellington referee for the following notes on some of the laws of the game. No one likes to hear the whistle too much during a game, but if players willjaot make themselves acquainted with the rules, referees have no alternative, if the game is to be kept clean, but to stop playing.

A Free-kick. —Why is it that players seem to have a great objection to learning the laws of the game? Players would do well to note the matter of distance from the ball which the law sets down for them to stand when free-kicks, including penaltykick, corner-kick, goal-kick, kick-off, are being taken. The law states clearly that the kicker’s opponents shall not approach within ten yards of the ball until it has been played. It is a common occurrence when a penalty-kick is being taken for players to stand on the 18-yards line; this is wrong, unless they are ten yards from the ball. There is only one exception to this law, and that is when the free-kick is being taken within ten yards of the goal-line. Then the defenders, if they prefer, may stand on their own goal-line instead of ten yards from the hall. It is a serious matter for a player to ignore the referee’s direction to move further away from the ball. Of course, any players of the kicker’s team may stand where they wish at any distance from the kicker, excepting a penalty-kick, when all players with the exception of the kicker, must be at least ten yards from where the kick is being taken. Shouting.—ls shouting permissible during the game by a player?—Shouting is permissible so long as the individual does not interfere with play, and so put his opponents to a disadvantage. W’hen a player shouts to give his side an advantage, then it comes under the term of ungentlemanly conduct. W’hen this takes place, the game should be stopped, the offender or offenders cautioned, and, if repeated, they are liable to be order* ed off. Good players do not require to shout; others should not indulge in the practice. If players would only think before opening their mouth and letting out a yell, we would see the game as it ought to be played.