WILL SUPPORT ITS REFEREES

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 750, 24 August 1929, Page 15

WILL SUPPORT ITS REFEREES

Auckland Rugby Union’s Stand AMENDED RULES OF PLAY DISCUSSED CANTERBURY'S criticism of the Auckland Rugby ruliugs is not to be passed over by the Auckland Rugby Union. A deputation from the Auckland Referees’ Association last evening gained from the union decisions to send a protest and to support the referees. In one and a-half hours’ discussion many of the sidelights of Rugby were touched upon.

The referees, represented by Alessrs. Al. Kronfeld, F. E. Sutherland and W. J. Meredith, made a strong case to the union in their appeal for action. “We felt we have been made the buffer for Canterbury’s complaint,” said Air. Sutherland, in bringing forward the referees’ recent decision to consider playing New Zealand rules instead of Auckland amended rules unless the union upheld them. “The remark by Air. S. F. Wilson, of the Canterbury Union, that Auckland referees, by playing the amendments, could not change back to New Zealand rules, amazed us. The statement that Canterbury would not play under an Auckland referee here or in any other match should have been made as a complaint to the Auckland Rugby Union. “Our objection is that no statement against the Southern complaint has been made publicly to help us. We have played the amended rules to help the game, but Canterbury’s attitude is going to spread to other unions. On a verbal request by Air. H. Frost, chairman of the union’s management committee, each year, we have agreed to the amendments. Now, we want the union to stand behind us.” NO PERSONAL AFFRONT Air. Sutherland did not take Canterbury’s objection to Northern referees as a personal affront, although there was a considerable Southern suspicion against the playing of the amendments. In 1927, the New Zealand Referees’ Association found it was not the best policy to play outside referees in ordinary representative games. “I deny that Auckland referees, who have been ignored for representative games, are not fully qualified to play New Zealand rules,” Mr. Sutherland said. “We cannot take this complaint, which has gone to the New Zealand Rugby Union, lying down. Personally, I think the Auckland amendments are an improvement to Rugby—but they are not constitutional.” Air. Sutherland regretted the absence from the meeting of Air. Frost, a strong advocate of the amendments. He could not find a reason for the New Zealand Union’s power to grant dispensation to Auckland. He instanced tlie success of Rugby against opposition codes in Australia. In Sydney the game _ was progressing in spite of the kick-into-touch rule being the only amendment. “Auckland secondary schools are seriously considering going back to New Zealand rules,” Mr. Sutherland stated. “I think the Auckland Union would show a fine spirit by recc-nsidering its amended rules. “The referees have not said xthey will play under New Zealand rules in their complaint, but no referee can do justice to himself by carrying two sets of rules. “What suggestion have you to overcome the difficulty of the Canterbury game?” asked Air. A. St. C. Belcher, in the chair. Air. Sutherland: That is for the Management Committee to decide. If Canterbury takes up this attitude, why should we consider playing them at CANCELLATION? Mr. Belcher said the Management Committee did not intend to cancel tlie frame, as far as he knew. He person-

ally had moved a motion to the committee pointing out to Canterbury its suggestion was against the practice in interprovincial games, but the proposal had not gone further. “While wo play the amendments we have not much hope of outside games,” said Mr. Sutherland. “Wlrat lias the union done to help us?” asked Mr. Kronfeld. Mr. Arthur Tilly replied that the union had always granted reasonable requests by the referees. Mr. Kronfeld: That is not an answer. ®What has the union done to support the referees? Mr. Belcher: Equal treatment with outside has always been sought. “Since 1913, Auckland referees Have been appointed to outside matches only three times by the New Zealand Union,” said Mr. Meredith. “Does the Auckland Union think this fair?” “Some of the statements in the South have been insulting,” declared Mr. S. Kronfeld, of the Management Committee. “The Auckland Union would lose dignity by replying in the same strain.” SLIGHT “BREEZE” Mr. Belcher: When anything hits the referees, they complain. When the clubs took up the question of the amendments, there was not a word from the referees. lam speaking personally. “This is our first complaint for four 3 r ears,” retorted Mr. M. Kronfeld. “I am surprised that you sit there and bring a club question up.” Mr. Belcher: We are here for the good of football. Mr. Kronfeld said the referees resented being treated as players—they were arbitrators for the union. Auckland amendments were discussed exhaustively, Mr. Belcher remarking that the South apparently objected to the rulings on the imaginary scrum line, the placing of the bail in scrums by the referee, and the absolute free kick. Messrs. Belcher and A. Bakerassured the referees of the Management Committee’s support. It was Mr. Baker’s motion under which the Management Committee will support the Referees’ Association in an effort to gain appointments for outside matches, and use every effort to secure the appointment of an Auckland referee .for the Canterbury game. Mr. Belcher gave it as his view that Auckland referees were competent to handle a game under New Zealand rules. “We have referees better than elsewhere in New Zealand, the same as we have the players,” said Mi'. S. Kronfeld. The last business was a decision to send a protest to the Canterbury Union against the departure from usual practice, in spite of the New Zealand Union’s letter. A list of Auckland referees chosen for interprovincial games was also sent.