FOOTBALL SENSATION

Taranaki Daily News, 12 June 1930, Page 13

FOOTBALL SENSATION

ATTACK UPON REFEREE

RUGBY UNION TAKES ACTION.

MORE SERIOUS CHARGE DEFERRED.

6. ROEBUCK STOOf) DOWN 4 WEEKS

- The sensational incident in the OkatoTukapa match at Okato on Saturday was ventilated at last night's meeting of the management committee of the Taranaki Rugby Union, when G. Roebuck (this being his second offence) wag stood down for four playing Saturday, but a decision in the case against E. Roebuck was postponed in view of the possibility of Court action. The match is to be replayed at Okato at the end of the Season,

“Then they can please themselves whether they play it or not,' 5 remarked Mr. Masters.

A report was forwarded regarding Roebuck brothers being ordered off the field and the alleged assault on the referee, Mr. K. A. Nodder, by E. Roebuck. “G. Roebuck,” stated the referee’s report, “was persistently talking to me. I told him to stop and he then said. ‘ls there no soap in New Plymouth?’ I took no notice of this as he did not say it directly to me, although it was meant for me to hear. “A few minutes later he knocked the hall on. I blew my whistle and ordered a scrum. He then said to me, ‘Did you see that?’ I replied, ‘Yes, I did.’ He then said, ‘Yon have washed your — eyes out!’ I then ordered him off the field.

“The next player, E. Roebuck, I ordered off for talking. He assaulted nfe, knocking me insensible. The circumstances leading up to the incident were: A few minutes after I had ordered G. Roebuck off the ground play swung across the field, where E. Roebuck was playing on the wing. He came up to me and said, ‘What have you put Gordon off for?’ I replied, ‘For giving cheek.’ He then said, ‘A fine referee you are.’ I then told him that he had better go off on the sideline too. He started to walk off theffield and I asked him his name. He then said, ‘My name’s Roebuck, you .’ He then hit me on the jaw, knocking me insensible. When I regained consciousness I declared the game off as I was unable to carry on, it being fully s half an hour before I absolutely recovered.

“FEELING NEAR END OF GAME.”

■ "When I declared the game off there was still seven “minutes to go and Tukapa had been attacking persistently for the previous 15 minutes. There was a lot of feeling towards the latter end of the match when Tukapa was on Okato’s line. I would like to mention that a spectator was a source of annoyance. Ono incident occurred when the ball was kicked a fair way from the Held and S. Roebuck held on to the other ball. He would not give it up to the teams, making them wait for the other ball.'’

The statement from the Okato club’s point of view set out that G. -Roebuck when questioned by the committee of the Okato club emphatically denied the charge of persistent talking or that he was previously warned. The remarks for which he was ordered off wore admitted with the exception of a certain word.

“The statement of the incident regarding E. Roebuck, which is greatly deplored by this club, while correct in some aspects is so utterly distorted in others as to give a most unfair view of the case,” continued the statement. The charge of swearing had been exhaustively investigated and from the evidence of numbers of the spectators and players who were, in a position to hear the club could only conclude that the referee, with a desire to strengthen his case, had made certain statements While a number of witnesses would swear to the facts the club wished to mention the names of Mr. P. N. Corbett, an independent witness, in no way connected with the club, Mr. W. Taylor (captain), two men on whose word absolute reliance was -placed and whose version bore out what the Roebucks said. Roebuck had been playing for 12 years and this was the first occasion that his conduct had been questioned. He regretted having acted as he did and stated that it was brought about by the unfair refereeing and “menacing and bombastic” manner in which he was ordered off. "DEPLORABLE INCOMPETENCE.” While not wishing to condone the offence, the committee felt that the whole regrettable affair was brought about by the "deplorable incompetence” of the referee. The game was being run by the Tukapa wing forward, instructions from whom the referee seemed only too ready to take. This incompetence was further exemplified by many of his rulings. In that connection the club mentioned that while play was in progress Mr. J. Johnson, another referee, went on the field and spoke to Mr. Nodder —under the existing circumstances a significant fact which pointed to all not being well. Mr. Nodder, according to Press reports, continued the club’s statement, was the referee concerned in the disputed try at Inglewood on a previous Saturday. The statement also complained that the same man on a previous occasion, also with the Okato club, was stood down for using the same words he now attributed to Roebuck.

The club urged that neither players jior spectators were unruly and mentioned that on the previous Saturday, while playing a losing game against Stratford, there was no semblance of animosity against the referee from the Ok.ato team. His impartial conduct of the game was appreciated by all. The ■charge against S. Roebuck, described as a spectator but actually appointed by the referee as line umpire, was characterised by .the club as trivial, tho ball in his possession being not laced or fit for use.

‘‘Wo wish,” continued the statement, “to say that this elub regrets the exaggerated and sensational reports published. A great many of these statements can readily be refuted, but they tend to prejudice the club.” The chairman explained that the union had to accept.the referee’s statement as' a statement of the facts of the case - and the arguments of the other side could be regarded only as being in mitigation of the offence. “Of course,” he said, “members of the committee ■will naturally use their discretion in leaching a decision,” Mr. McLeod went on to say that, in

view of the ‘possibility of a pending suit the discussion, after the Okato delegation had had its say, should be “in committee.” This course was agreed to. Before the delegation was received, however, the chairman remarked that the action of the Referees’ Association .in discussing the matter in open meeting was to be regretted. Mr. L. Carey, who acted as spokesman for the Okato club, traversed the contents of the club’s written statement. Dealing with the case of G. Roebuck, he said he had little further to add, but in the matter of E. Roebuck, who struck the referee, he denied from the evidence of witnesses, that the oaths complained of were used.

Mr. P, N. Corbett, an independent spectator, declared emphatically that swear words were never used. He attributed the whole cause of the incident to what he described as the entire failure of the referee to control the game and his giving of palpably unfair rulings. “I have been mixed up with Rugby football for years,” he said, “and I have never seen such a disgraceful exhibition of referring.” He added that he was within easy hearing distance all the time and declared that E. Roebuck never swore. He merely asked, “What did you order Gordon off for?” The referee replied, “For being cheeky and off you go too.” Mr. Corbett had further searching criticisms of the refereeing and of the referee’s altitude. “It was a case of Tukapa being given every advantage —win in any case,” he said. DENIAL OF SWEARING. Mr. Carey: lam a peaceful man, but even so I felt very heated at the rulings and had already made up my mind to question the referee afterwards. He said there was nothing in the alleged hostile attitude of the spectators and denied that a batten was waved threatenly. E. Roebuck candidly admitted having struck the referee but gave the same version of the incidents leading up to the ordering off as did Mr. Corbett. He said the referee’s attitude was so threatening that he struck him impulsively. In answer to a question Roebuck said he was 2.7 years of age. Mr. McLeod: The point of your evidence is that you deny having sworn at the referee?

Roebuck: Exactly. Mr. McLeod: Then why did you strike him?

Roebuck: We were all worked up over the adverse rulings. I had just gone down to a forward rush at the time.

Mr. McLeod then said it was possible that the Union would postpone its decision in the case of E. Roebuck until any prospects of a Court action had been disposed of. That was only fair to Roe-’ buck.

In connection with the referee’s qualifications Mr. McLeod remarked that a man had to gravitate through various phases of football experience before he became a referee.

“Another thing,” said Mr. Carey, “this affair did not last half-an-hour as claimed. It was all over inside of five minutes and the ground cleared.” The line umpire interposed at this stage to say that he was waving a batten but there was a flag at the end of it. He also mentioned that two balls were in use right through until the middle of the second spell, when Tukapa wanted a dry ball to take a free kick. “That was ridiculous,” he said. Then the lace of one of the balls became undone and that ball was withheld until the lace was retied.

Members of the deputation strenuously denied that the public encroached on the ground. It was the referee himself who declared the game off, they said. He had recovered in two or three minutes.

In reply to z a-suggestion from Mr. McLeod, Mr. Carey said the club would be only too pleased to comply with any wish of the union to have a fence erected, In fact, it would have been erected but for negotiations to secure the use of another ground. In thanking the deputation Mr. McLeod repeated that the referee was not on trial. Dealing with the case of G. Roebuck the chairman recalled that he had been suspended for two weeks just a year ago for a similar offence. Mr. J. Goodwin (Hawera) moved that G. Roebuck be stood down for four weeks.

Mr. E. H. Young (Stratford) thought the suggested sentence too light and moved as an amendment that G. Roebuck be stood down for the remainder of the season. Mr, R. Masters deprecated such a penalty for a more or less trivial incident, asking members to deal with the case entirely apart from the more grave charge against. E. Roebuck. In any case, lie said, the union had. to be consistent in the matter of penalties. The amendment was lost decidedly. Re f> anliiißoebuck decision was postponed, the player being stood down in tho meantime.