SOCCER

Stratford Evening Post, Volume LVIII, Issue 20, 19 June 1926, Page 6 (Supplement)

SOCCER

*£J . HAWFRA.Jmie, ]? AnVoai 3. Manaiia, 0.

Western 2. Technical 5.

Thistle 5, Villa 1. Sunnyside 10, St. Albans 0. _ .".. AUCKLAND, June 1!). Tramwavs %, North Shore 2'. North-cote 1 2, Thistle 1. Ponsonby 2, Y.M.C.A. A (?). WELLINGTON, June 19. • Watersidefs 0, Hospital 6. , Thistle 3, Institute 1. "fy.M.C.A, 7, Seatoun 2. ...,-Marist M, Petone 2. ■Diamonds 3. Brooklyn 0. HAMILTON. .Tune 19. A match for the Brown 'Shield between South Auckkuxl and Poverty Bav. resulted in a Avin i'cr the former by.4"?t.o nil. ' The Scottish F.A. has startled TTJe football world by a companion suggestion to their now accepted reform of the offside rule, that the penalty * law should be revolutionised (stales the Glasgow Evening Times). If Carlton Place is not careful it will be getting a reputation of being actually awake. I am afraid that on . this.'occasion their idea will receive short "shrift. Jn effect they propose - cither to increase the penalty area to thirty yards from the goalposts to an area bounded by the bye line, the touchlines, and another mark across the Held at thirty yards out, the kick in both cases to be taken from the actual spot of the infringement.

Presumably this.is a laudable effort to'make the punishment ..fit the crme. It seems, however, to have been overlooked that this is exactly contrary to the purpose of the penalty IaAV, which was placed on the book of football statutes to act as a deterrent to tricky play in the neighbourhood of the gpal, even at the expense of justice tp some extent. The fact that a goal is a probability from a foul anywhere in the box was originally regarded as merit, though it leems nowadays to be considered otherwise. In the bad old days you simply SAvept the feet from an opponent who faintly threatened danger, and then, to the best of your ability, packed your. goal. It was a great, scheme. hut"singularly unsporting.' As a preventive the idea of the penalty Avas introduced, and 1 .think it would be a step backward to do anything to alter its severity. if under the neAv* i scheme the punishment were more severe, then if might be justified, but this would not be the case • except in the limited space directly I iii'friTJit o f file goal and nearer to it • fatal spot. Whatever change is desirable, it does not-seem i.Avise to'tinker with the IS-yards lines. Possibly a new area outside of this, in which free kicks misjut. be taken more ifrecly. is Avortliy of eousideratipn,*.:|mt I doubt it; we do not wish. too many complications and matheihatjcSi designs on the field of play.