REFEREES' STRIKE

Taranaki Daily News, 3 July 1924, Page 5

REFEREES' STRIKE

VIEW OF RUGBY UNION. THE PUNISHMENT ADEQUATE. MEN AVAILABLE FOR SATURDAY. AMICABLE RELATIONS DESIRED. Adequate punishment has been imposed on offenders in the past, and the same policy will be continued in the future in regard to players reported by referees. This was the effect of a resolution passed by thfe management committee of the Taranaki Rugby Union at Hawera yesterday, after a discussion of the position that has arisen as the result of the decision of the North Taranaki Referees’ Association to strike as a protest against the alleged leniency shown by the Union in dealing with offenders. The Union also decided to inform the Association that its complaint should be forwarded through the Taranaki Referees’ Association if it was decided that the matter should be further proceeded with. After the letter conveying the resolution had been read, the chairman (Mr. Jas. McLeod) explained the events that had occurred since the meeting concerning what is known as the Inglewood incident. The Northern Division of the Referees’ Association had gone on strike, and the Union was put into the position of having a few hours’ notice to find referees. The Union desired that only active and competent referees should control the game, but, in the event of the present position not being patched qp, volunteers had been called for in ord£r to have men available if there were not ’ sufficient active members available, and quite a number had volunteered. THE QUESTION AT ISSUE. The whole question at issue, continued Mr. McLeod, was whether or, not the Union should agree with the adopted by the North Taranaki Referees’ Association. He did not dispute that any one had a right to a different opinion, but the question was whether the referees had the right to dictate the action the Union should take in future, or whether or m t the Union should control the game. The whole tone of the meeting, and the resolution passed, conveyed the impression that the Union was treating offenders with undue leniency this year. In practically every case the referees recommended the penalty, and the Union did as requested.

Mr. McLeod considered that the statement that referees were finding it increasingly difficult to control matches on account of the leniency shown to offenders, was an extravagant one. He did not see how any responsible body could offer a guarantee, as asked, to the North Taranaki Referees’ Association as to the penalty the Union would inflict on offences concerning which the Union at present knew nothing. He hoped the difficulty would, however, be surmounted without loss of dignity to themselves or humiliation to anyone else. PROCEDURE AT FAULT. Mr. F. Whyte raised the point that the North Taranaki Referees’ Association should have forwarded its complaint through the Taranaki Referees’ Association. Until they sent it through that body, the Union should not deal with it. He moved that the letter be referred back to the North Taranaki Referees’ Association to forward through the proper channels. This motion was seconded by Mr. W. B. Fearon. Mr. A. R. Davis pointed out that this course would not enable the difficulty to be overcome this week. Mr. Whyte: “That is the fault of the Northern Referees’ Association.” Mr. Davis considered the Union should try and patch the matter up. Mr. W. A. Guy: “Do you think patching up would do any good?” Mr. Davis: “Yes, I do.” Continuing, Mr. Davis said the referees sought only an assurance that the Union intended dealing adequately with future cases. Mr, A. O. Casey moved as an amendment that the North Taranaki Referees’ Association be informed that the Union in the past had always dealt adequately with players, and in th e future would continue to do so. Mr. Sanders (secretary of the Central Division of the Referees’ AssociAion) said the matter had not been discussed by his division. Both the Central and Southern Divisions should have discussed the mattei before it was referred to the Union. ATTEMPT’ TO STAMPEDE UNION. The chairman asked whether the other divisions were prepared to supply referees to fill the gaps until the matter was settled. Mr. Fearon stated that eight southern referees were prepared to come to the north, and Mr. Sanders said a number from the central would also be willing to officiate. The chairman considered that there had been some personal animus behind the meeting. The resolution of the North Taranaki Referees’ Association, as it stood at the present moment, savored of an attempt to stampede the Union, which, as far as he knew, always dealt fairly with the referees and the players, though he granted the referees their right to a different opinion. H e considered there had been some wild talk at the meeting. It had been said that the Union had failed adequately to punish offenders, and he read the reports of the referees in the cases of the five players who had been ordered off this season prior to the Inglewood incident. These reports showed that in two of the cases the referees had said the ordering-off would b e a good lesson, and in another the case was not serious. Where were the increasing num ber of offenders? Mr. Papps said this mainly referred to insults to referees. The chairman: “W’here are specific cases?” Mr. Papps: “During the last three years.” The chairman pointed out that the committee could only deal with this year’s incidents. A QUESTIONED VOTE. The chairman also referred to statements made by Mr. Davis, who had said that, in the case of Soffe and Moran, he had been allowed a vote, but when the serious cases arose he was not permitted to vote. The facts were that Mr. Davis’ vote was questioned when he moved a motion in the first case discussed. Moreover, though Mr. Davis knew that the referees at a previous meeting had decided to urge that the heaviest penalty should be given to the Inglewood offenders, he did not mention that at the Union meeting, not that it would have influenced the Union, but it would have put Mr. Davis “on side” with his association. Mr. McLeod, therefore, said he did not blame the meeting of referees so much for their action, as the facts had not been put aquarely before I

them. Moreover, it had been stated by Mr. Davis that he had entirely disapproved of the resolution passed regarding the referee, when, as a matter of facj, he was asked at the meeting if he considered the resolution cast any reflection on the referee, and he said “no. H Mr. Davis said a word had been altered afterwards. Mr. L. J. Furrie said that apparently the chief trouble with the referees was that the offences were not punished equitably, the same penalties being imposed for minor offences as for more serious ones. He favoured referring it to the Taranaki executive, which would deal with the plotter judicially. It was a great pity the matter had arisen, but it might do a lot of good in the end. THE COMMITTEE’S DECISION. Mr. A. O. Casey moved: “That while noting that the complaint has not come through the proper channel (the Taranaki Referees’ Association), and wishing to preserve amicable relations with all sections of the Referees’ Association, this Union considers that it has dealt adequately with offenders in the past and will continue to deal with each case on its merits in future, and to give referees adequate protection.” This motion was seconded by Mr. Sanders and carried. It was also decided to inform the North Taranaki Referees’ Association that the matter should be sent through the Taranaki Referees’ Association in the event of their wishing it further dealt with.