STRIKING THE REFEREE

Taranaki Daily News, 17 July 1930, Page 4

STRIKING THE REFEREE

OKATO-TUKAPA INCIDENT

I i ■ ( HAIJ.'IiS AGAINST !•'< IOTIGLLEH. MAGISTRATE DEFERS SENTENCE. GUILTY OK INDECENT LANGUAGE. Haring struck :.lie referee, K. A. N<»dder, in the Okato versus Tttkapa" senior Rugby match at Okato on June 7, E. Roebuck pleaded guilty to a charge of assault hoard, before Mr. 11. W. Tate, S.M., in the New Plymouth Police Court yesterday. On a second charge of using indecent language on the ground Roebuck elected to be tried by the lower court, and was convicted. Sentence was deferred until Wednesday. The referee a,nd two Tukapa players stated that the referee, had ordered G. Roebuck off the field. Play swung across to the other side of the ground, where E. Roebuck asked why his brother had been put off. The referee said, “For Giving cheek.” E. Roebuck replied, “A fine —- referee you are.” The referee told him to go to the side-line, too. As be was going the referee stopped him and asked, “What is your name?” “Roebuck, you !” answered the defendant, at the same time striking the referee with his fist and knocking him unconscious. The defence admitted the assault under extenuating circumstances, claim-ing-that the game was heated, and the referee unfair. Evidence was given by spectators „ within hearing, including a farmer, S. Goodin, Pungarehu, all of whom said that Roebuck used no indecent language. During the hearing of the police evidence counsel for the defence urged that as the assault charge was admitted the police should drop the charge of indecent language. He could call witnesses from Okato to deny the evidence of the referee and Tukapa players that indecent language was used. .The prosecution of the charge would only lead to rancour between the two clubs and harm football in the province. The police, however, said they considered that it would be more in the interests of the game to go on with the charge. The magistrate, in summing-up at the end of the day, said: “It seems to me that this has been a case of straining at a gnat after having swallowed a

camel. Defendant pleads guilty to a very serious offence and then strenuously defends himself on a comparatively minor charge.” ‘‘For a time the evidence of Goodin made me inclined to think that the witnesses for the police may have been mistaken. But in the end he turned out strongly partisan. I believe the witnesses for the prosecution, and consequently enter a conviction. This charge, however, is a very minor matter compared with the other charge, of assault. “The situation is this: We are at the parting of the ways. If football, in itself a very fine game, is to remain a fine game and of value to the community, then its government must be strictly controlled, and such things asstriking the referee must be in practice a thing utterly out of the question.” The magistrate asked the Senior-Ser-geant what he knew of Roebuck’s character and record. The Senior Sergeant said he would inquire. “I want, first of all, to point this out,” continued the Magistrate. “For such assault defendant is liable to two months’ imprisonment with hard, labour. Unless football is to be entirely ruined such a thing as the assault of a referee must be put down absolutely rigorously. I want to know something about defendant. I do not want to inflict a term of imprisonment unless I can help it. I shall defer sentence till next Wednesday, till I know something about him.” Senior-Sergeant MeCrorie conducted the prosecution, and Mr. A. A. Bennett appeared for the defendant. The referee, Kenneth A .Nodder, carrier, of New Plymouth, said he had i to order G. Roebuck off the field. The game then went to the other side of the field and E. Roebuck had asked what his brother was put off for. Nodder replied: “For giving cheek!” E. Roebuck then said:. “A fine. —— sort of referee you are!” The referee told him that he had better' stand on the linetoo. As he went off the field Nodder asked him his name. Roebuck came back and said: “Roebuck’s my name, you !” and hit him on the chin and knocked him out. The match finished there. About -10 or 50 onlookers were present and the language was used about 15 yards from the side-line. WAS GAME OCT OF CONTROL. .To. Mr. Bennett: He did not allow the game to get out of control. Mr. Bennett: Do you regard yourself as a competent and efficient referee ? Nodder: I know the rules; I have passed the referees’ examination. •Mr. Bennett: Don’t bother about that. Do you consider yourself a competent referee? Nodder: I do. “What about the Okato learn? Wore you- on good terms with them?'’ “I was and still am ” ‘‘This term yon say Roebuck iwcd to use , that is the very term you yourself used in the same match with this team some time ago, is it not? You were then playing for Star against Oka to. Were you not brought before

tho Union in connection with it? ‘■Yes, sir.” '‘ln reporting this match to the Rugby Union,” said Mr. Bennett, ‘'you also 1 saw lit to report another Roebuck whom you referred to as a spectator hut who was, in fact, a. lino umpire. You reported him lor not al lowing the use of a second ball?” •!Yes, sir.” “Would you 'nave reported h>;n if ‘ yoivhad known that ball was not hued up or fit for use?” 1 . “NO.” ! Asked what was the nature of the chock’given him by G. Roebuck, Nod- ' der replied, “More bad language.” G. 1 Roebuck had told him to wash his < eyes out. Nodder warned him once and 1 ordered him off the second time. As ' far as the Tukapa team was concerned there was no talk at all. ■' Mr. Bennett: What was the cause I of the hot feeling in the second spell? PRESSURE ON THE LINE. Nodder: The people were pressing on the line. Up till then it had been., t a good hard game. Okato was leading s find' Tukapa was trying hard to score, e Another referee, Johnson, had come on v

the field and spoken to him. Johnson had not remarked what a lot he (Nodder) was missing. After the match was over Nodder did not say he was going to make it as hot for those Roebucks as he could. He had merely said he was going to report it to the . Union and would have to lay a charge against Roebuck for assault. The defendant Roebuck was playing in the three-quar-ter line and Gayton for Tukapa was in the pack. Guy was wing-forward and Sullivan was in the Tukapa pack. He wished to ask the court at this stage, said Mr. Bennett, whether it was really nec&ssary or desirable for the charge of indecent language to be continued. If the court had read the language in the charge it would realise that there was only one word in it to which serious exception could be taken. That word was obviously used in circumstances in which the tension and i feeling of the parties concerned were very high. If the case proceeded it would necessitate the calling of witnesses from the opposing football teams. Speaking from his brief, he was confidently assured by spectators and Okato players within hearing that the words were not used. Where would the matter end? The two teams would be necessarily pitted against each other in a way different from friendly contact on the field. He suggested to the police that, having obtained a conviction for the assault, they might very well let the matter rest there. He had some diffidence in I bringing the matter up but felt it was j his duty to mention that aspect to the court and the senior-sergeant. Th© magistrate: It is a minor charge, I do not think the court need say much about it. In view of the fact that incidents like these were being mentioned in the paper every day, said the iscnior-ser-gant, the thing ought to go on. It was in the interests of football to go on with it. The magistrate considered that the language should bo regarded rather as profane than indecent?. The case then proceeded. TUKAPA CAPTAIN’S EVIDENCE. The captain of the Tukapa senior team, George Sullivan, civil servant, said that up to the time of the, incident, the game had been played in’a very friendly spirit. Ho did not hear

, ! any complaints against the referee. He ! did not hear the Okato captain comi I plain. . Mr. Bennett: Would you still say that if I told you that I have here a I letter from the local minister expressing strong and unequivocal dissatisfaction with the refereeing of the game. Sullivan: Yes. Mr. Bennett then read the letter aloud : to the court “You would still say in the face of that letter that the referee- ! ing did not cause complaints.” ' Sullivan: I have already said yes, Mr. Bennett. I i Another member of the Tukapa foot- ! ball team, George Frederick Gayton, • described the incident of the assault. He was a few feet away from the referee and Roebuck when the assault took place. It was a pretty "rough and tumble” match from start to finish. To Mr. Bennett: There was some feeling on both sides and some slight dissatisfaction with the referee. He ventured to say again, said Mr. Bennett, addressing the court, that the matter of the charge of indecent language was aggravating the case unnecessarily. The two charges arose out of a regrettable incident and whatever the result of the present case the matters must be treated as one. The position was, however, that the player himself and all the spectators who were in a position to hear definitely stated that lie did not use the word . As regards the assault charge, it was unjustifiable in law. Roebuck lost his | temper and struck the referee. At the same time he would show that there were mitigating circumstances in the atmosphere of that particular game and in the controlling of the game. ' Roebuck himself and the officials of ■ the club all seriously regretted the assault. They admitted that even if the referee had shown favouritism there was in law no justification for his act. Yet, said Mr. Bennett, there was a straining point. With regard to the language it was a strange thing that Roebuck, who had played for his team for 12 years without anything previously against him, should have forgotten that he used the word . It was not, said Mr. Bennett, that he wished to reflect upon Sullivan and Gayton at all, but he did think they were mistaken. Roebuck was a clean-mouthed man and. would be vouched for by the, , Rev. Sinclair and his curate. . ! ! A The defendant, Edward Victor Rhe- ,

I buck, said the words he used were: “A fine referee you are!” Nodder had asked him his name and he had re- ; plied “Roebuck!” and with that struck I him. He had not used the word—at any time when he was epeaking to Nodder. He struck Nodder because he himself was angry and lost his temper. Air. Bennett; Did you see Sullivan near when you hit Roebuck? Roebuck: No. I saw him afterwards j when he was calling to his mates to * “clean this guy up,” as he called me. I A spectator on the line, Percy NewI ton Corbett, said he heard Nodder say jto Roebuck: “What is your name?” Roebuck said, “Roebuck,” and with that he hit him. To the senior-sergeant; He was ten or twelve yards away from the scene of the assault. There was no feeling between the players, except for the game getting out of control. The senior-sergeant: How out of control ? Corbett: Well, the referee would give a free-kick to Tukapa for an infringement and a scrum to Okato for the same infringement. The senior-sergeant: That’s the trouble with you Okato players, you don’t know the rules. The captain of the Okato team, William Taylor, said Roebuck did not use the term . The captain of the Tukapa team had said, “Come on, clean this guy up!” Mr. Bennett: And what did you say to that? Taylor: I said, “Don’t be silly.” A Pungarehu farmer, Sydney L. Goodin. stated that he was in no way connected with the Okato Football Club. He had heard the words spoken and Roebuck had not used the word -• It seemed to him Okato had to play 16 men. He had been disgusted with the match because of the poor refereeing. . The senior-sergeant: That Is only your opinion. Mr. Bennett; There has never been trouble at Okato before and there will never be trouble there again. Harold Vivian Roberts, a member of the Okato team, was sure he had not heard bad language used. John Lawn, another member of the team, gave similar evidence. He could call more evidence of a si miImmature, eaid Mr. Bennett,.but would close his case there,