THE HOCKEY TROUBLE.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VI, Issue 1788, 6 November 1919, Page 7

THE HOCKEY TROUBLE.

EXECUTIVE TAKES ACTION. CANTERBURY ASKED TO WITHDRAW. A special meeting of the executive of the New Zealand Hockey Association was held last evening to discuss the position that arose when the Canterbury association passed resolutions censuring Mr L. C. Kent, the referee nominated by Auckland for the Canterbury v. Auckland Shield match, played in Christcliurch on September 27 last, for his alleged unsatisfactory decisions. The executive passed a resolution desiring that the Canterbury association should withdraw those resolutions, which specially reflected on Mr Kent's capabilities as a referee. The following members of tile executive were present: Messrs H. S. J. Goodman (chairman), D. Snell, G. S. Cowper, H. Hatch, A. W. Dunkley, G. W. Ford, R. P. Grainger, P. R. Quartcrmain, and A. E. Seeker (lion, secretary). Before the matter was discussed, the chairman read letters from Mr Kent, the Canterbury Hockey Association, and Mr H. Throp, captain of the Canterbury team, setting forth their respective views on the incidents of the game in question. Most of these views hove already been published in reports and letters in The Sun. Mr Kent in his letter said he had given his decisions impartially, and strictly in accordance with the rules. His interpretations were similar to those given by him in representative and club matches In Auckland during the last nine seasons, and he had still to learn in what rcsnect his decisions were considered unsatisfactory. The resolutions passed by the Canterbury association had come as a surprise to him. In his opinion the whole trouble had been caused by the lack of uniformity In the rules adopted by Auckland and Canterbury. It appeared that in Christchureh a great deal more latitude was allowed, and apparently breaches were permitted that would not be tolerated in Auckland. In the true interests of the game It would seem that a Dominion conference of referees was essential to lay down interpretations and rulings. The chairman said that whatever were the rulings of Mr Kent, he had been appointed for the match by Auckland and as Canterbury had approved of his appointment it was bound to accept his rulings. Mr Dunkley said that Canterbury was wrong in passing the resolutions. Mr Quartcrmain expressed the opinion that the Canterbury association should have placed the matter before the New Zealand association Instead of passing resolutions censuring Mr Kent. This would have been the correct course to follow. The chairman said the resolutions were not fair. Mr Kent's rulings may have hern correct, although not in favour of Canterbury, thus causing the hostile demonstration of the spectators. The following resolution was carried: — That the Canterbury Hockey Association having agreed to Mr Kent acting as referee in the Shield match, Canterbury v. Auckland, it is bound to accept his decisions, and in view of this circumstance, and in the best interests of the sport, the executive directs that the Canterbury association withdraw the resolutions 1, 2, 3 and 4 forwarded to the governing body.

These resolutions were:— (1) That, in view of the most unsatisfactory refereeing by Mr L. C. Kent, of Auckland, in the Challenge Shield match, Canterbury v. Auckland, as instanced in flic captain's report on the match, the committee is unanimously of the opinion that he is not capable of referccliig in any similar fixture in the future. (2) That a copy of the above resolution be forwarded to each association affiliated to the New Zealand Hockey Association. (3) That, in view of the unseemly demonstration by the general public at the recent Shield match against Mr L. C. Kent, this committee very strongly recommends the New Zealand Hockey Association Jliat it would not be in the best interest oTOockey to appoint Mr Kent as a referee to any Shield match in the future. (4) That a copy of the above resolution be forwarded to the New Zealand Hockey Association. With regard to the resolution passed by the Auckland association refusing to play any further matches with Canterbury until the Canterbury association had withdrawn its resolutions and apologised to Mr Kent, the executive decided to hold over consideration of it until a reply had been received from the Canterbury association. The fifth resolution passed by the Canterbury association was to the effect that in future outside referees should be appointed for Challenge Shield matches. The general opinion of the executive was that this resolution deserved consideration, and it appointed a sub-committee, consisting of Messrs Ford, Cowpcr, and Hatch, to go into the question of the revision of Cup and Shield match rules generally.