HOCKEY DISPUTE

Southland Times, Issue 20834, 24 July 1929, Page 11

HOCKEY DISPUTE

THE OTARA CLUB’S GRIEVANCE.

SEQUEL TO REFEREE’S COMPLAINT.

Some fireworks were provided when a grievance from the Southern Hockey SubAssociation was aired at the meeting of the Southland Ladies’ Hockey Association last night. Apparently, at a match played on June 22, the referee, the Rev. E. J. Evans, found cause for complaint about the Otara players or supporters. He brought the matter up before the Southern Sub-Association and the sub-association decided to ask for an apology from the Otara Club. Failing that, it was threatened that the Otara Club would be disqualified. The Otara Club was not satisfied with the treatment it had rereceived, and Mr C. Casey attended the meeting to put its case.

Mr P. Gilfeddcr introduced Mr Casey to the meeting. x

Mr 11. Golden, the secretary of the subassociation, said that as no appeal had come before the Southern Sub-Association the Otara Club had no right to speak before the association. During the week the subassociation had refused a deputation from the club.

Here Mr Casey interrupted and said that that was precisely the reason why he had come as a deputation that might. The Otara Club had never been given a chance to puts its own case.

Mr Golden objected to the association dealing with the matter. The sub-associa-tion was capable of dealing with it. Mr Gilfeddcr: We do not suggest that we'will deal with the matter to-night, but we could hear the case. In the New Zealand Rules an association can disqualify, but there is no rule that a sub-association can disqualify a club. Mr Casey: If the Southern Sub-Associa-tion would only- advise the club of the misconduct in question the matter could be properly discussed. Mr. Golden claimed that the club had been informed of the misconduct, but Mr. Casey denied this. He said that the only phrase used was “misconduct on the field.” The club did not know whether it was misconduct on the part of the players or the spectators. As no players had been penalized, the club came to the conclusion that the spectators were to blame. If so, it was. not right to hold the club accountable for the action of spectators.

Mr. R. J. Surgenor said that a club could not be disqualified for the conduct of a player who was not penalized, and it certainly was not liable for the action of spectators.

- Mr. Casey said he was at the match and the only caution he heard from the referee was when the referee said to players who were chatting together: “Not so much talking.” Mr D. Burrell expressed the opinion that it would be only courtesy on the part of the sub-association to allow the Otare Club to put its case. The club certainly had the right of appeal to this association or even to the New Zealand Association. Mr. Golden: If the Otare Club overrides the sub-association, that’s the end of Southern hockey. Mr. Casey: It works the other way, too. Mr. Golden moved that the deputation be not heard any more by’ the association.

Mr. Burrell said the association had no right to refuse hearing Otare state its case.

Mr. Hamilton seconded Mr. Golden’s motion, saying that it was no use hearing the case until or unless an appeal was made to the association and it was asked to act.

Mr. Surgenor: Did the referee at the subassociation- meeting voice complaints, and was the club advised of what the business was to be about ? Mr. Casey denied that it had.

In reply to Mr. Gilfedder, Mr. Golden said that the charge was originally trifling, but it had become magnified as time went on. After further informal discussion, during which it was stressed that no disqualification could me made unless a specific complaint was made by the referee against a player on the ground, the meeting was declared closed, and the matter was further discussed privately.