REFEREES’ ULTIMATUM.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 16505, 5 August 1919, Page 7

REFEREES’ ULTIMATUM.

TREATMENT BY RUGBY UNION. CONFERENCE MUST BE HELD. OR NO MORE REFEREES' APPOINTED. For three and a-half hours on Monday evening the Taranaki Rugby Referees’ Association (Northern Division) discussed, at their meeting room in New Plymouth, what steps should he taken to compel the Taranaki Itugoy Union to give redress for grievances • which the referees consider they arc suffering. The decision finally arrived at was that unless a conference is hold between the executive of the union and members of the association on or before Monday, August IX, no more referees will be appointed to take matches this season. A proposal not to appoint any more referees until a conference had been held was not proceeded with for the sake of the clubs, which would have found it very difficult to arrange for referees for the matches this week. Mr. G. Hopkins presided, and the following members were present; Messrs. T. Petty, J. H. Thompson, H. A. Nuttall, L~ Humphries, F. Roberts, D. • George, F. Hooker, W. Roch, D. Johnson, B. Petty and V. O. West (secretary). COMPLAINT ABOUT A LETTER. The secretary reported having written to the secretary of the Stratford Club, drawing attention to the fact that he had not paid the expenses of two referees who had taken three matches at Stratford, whereas the rules _ provided that a referee should be paid on the ground. In a reply dated August 1 the secretary to the Stratford Club said he had misunderstood the position and expected to receive a memorandum of the amount due. The letter continued : “In the third ease, I was so disgusted with the impartial (“partial?’’) and incompetent manner in which, both in the spectators’ and my opinion, the referee gave his decisions, that I walked off the field in anything but the best of humours, and certainly had no room for thought of the man’s expenses. No donbt you have experienced the same trials in your time and will understand my feelings for those moments.” Mr. Nuttall said he was the referee spoken of, and the letter contained a deliberate falsehood. Before the match commenced he asked the writer of the letter for his expenses, Mr. Thompson being with him at the tme. The writer was disgusted, no doubt, because the speaker had cautioned him and threatened to put him off the field. The chairman said he did not question Mr. Nuttall’s impartiality, but if the writer of the letter had had any such complaint to make ho should have referred the matter to the association and not mixed it up with file matter of expenses. Continuing, Mr. Hopkins said that after examining books on football dating from 1888 to the present time he could not find any place where a. referee had any-means of getting redress from a club or any individual frequenting a football ground.

INEQUALITY OF SENTENCE. The chairman instanced a grievance the referees had in connection with a recent decision of the executive of the Rugby Union. A senior player—a man old enough to know bettor—had been reported to the union by an accredited referee for using obscene language to that referee at Stratford, and lie was ordered to stand down for one month. A Maori boy, not old enough to fully realise what it meant if he made a slip, was put down for the remainder of the season for using obscene language to one of his mates at Waitara. Then take, for instance, the matter of Mr. Thomson at Eltham; the association had no redress. [The association took up tho stand that Bunn, the player who struck Mr. Thomson, should be disqualified for life, whereas it did not appear the Rugby Union had adopted this course, though their decision had not yet been officially announced.] Mr. Nuttall: Yon can stand on your “dig,” can’t you? Ihe chairman: And throw the sponge overboard? Yes; that’s the only thing. Mr. Nuttall: Well, it has got to come sooner or later. Either go on and be insulted or throw the matter overboard. Mr. George suggested arranging a meeting with the Rugby Union and talking the matter over with them. The chairman said that for years the referees had endeavoured to get direct representation on the Rugby Union. They had not succeeded yet, but he believed that if they went to work in the right manner they would have it next season. REFEREE AND UNION. Mr. Nuttall said that he received a letter asking him to meet Inc Rughy Union at 2 o’clock at Eltham last Thursday (July 31) in connection with his reporting of C. Kivell and a spectator (whom lie thought was E. Kivell) for using obscene language. He rapped at the door of the meeting room at 3 b’clhck and told Mr. Harkness, who opened it that he would bo outside the door when required. After he had waited for an hour and twenty minutes Mr. M‘Leod came out, and the speaker learned that the meeting had been dealing with the matter and had adjourned. Mr. Nuttall produced a report of the proceedings which appeared in the Eltham Argus, and read it aloud. He pointed out that one member of the executive had remarked that to disqualify C. Kivell for a. month would not, debar him from taking part in any play-off that might eventuate. Mr. Harkness had remarked that it was not E. Kivell who used the bad language on the line, hut he (Mr. Harkness) did not sec any reason to tell Mr. Nuttall who was the spectator who used the language. “Wasn’t that a fine thing for a member of the Rugby Union to say?” Mr. Nuttall asked. He drew attention to another part of the report which stated that Mr. Masters expressed tho opinion that the whole trouble was due to the incompetency of tho rbforee. Was Mr. Masters able to say whether a referee was capable or not? He reminded those present that a referee was first proposed to the association and then put through a severe examination, and if he proved satisfactory in that, his name was forwarded to the Rugby Union, who approved of him as a referee before lie was appointed to any matches. Continuing, Mr. Nuttall asked if the meeting would not be astounded if he told them that within five minutes of tho commencement of the game at Stratford Mr. Harkness, a member of the Rugby Union, walked up to the Eltham secretary and said: “What sort of a b— referee" have you brought down with you?” This was said within the hearing of other',,

spectators, who took up the attitude that it a member of the Union could say such things they could also do so. Mr. •Nnttall complained that the Rugby Ui-.’-m was run by four men who wore, not out for the benefit of football generally. but for the interests of the Stratford Club. “You are going to kill football and introduce Northern League into Taranaki next season if something is not done,” Mr. Nuttall averred. RESOLUTIONS PROPOSED. After some discussion Mr. Nutlall, who said his idea was to bring the Rugby Union up to the scratch immediately, moved: “that this association refuse to appoint any more referees as a protest against the action of the Union in various matters.” Mr. Humphries seconded. Mr. Thomson, who did not want the clubs to suffer, moved, as an amendment; “That the Union bo asked to have a conference with the association on or before August 13, tailing which the association refuses to take any more matches this season.” The amendment was seconded, and during discussion Mr. Thomson complained of the way in which he was treated by the Rugby Union at the meeting last jliursuay. Ho was invited to be present, but was asked for no statement, and Bunn was allowed to make all sorts of statements uctoro ho (the speaker) had said a word about the mutter. I lien, without any report from him, the union proceeded to make their decision regarding Uunn. The amendment was lost by five voles to four, and Mr. Nuttall s motion was carried on the casting vote of the chairman, the voting being four cadi way. ... The chairman of the Rugby Union (Mr. J. IVrLeod) was then communicated with and came to the meeting. The action taken was explained to him. After an informal talk, in which Mr. M‘Leod urged the referees not to penalise the players instead of the union, Mr. M'Leod undertook to call a conference for Thursday evening next at Stratford, if it were possible Jor llio members of the union to attend on that evening. With this understanding the resolution previously carried was rescinded. Mr. Thomson then moved his previous amendment as a resolution, and it was carried, with the alteration of the date to August 11 instead of August 13. GRIEVANCES OF REFEREES. Tile referees then drew up a list of the grievances which required to be ventilated at the, conference. The headings were: The treatment of the Stratford and Waitara offenders. The letter from the Stratford secretary. The conduct of Mr. Harkncss.. The reception of Messrs. Thomson and Nnttall at Eltliam on July 31. Failure to pay expenses of referee at North v. Central test match at Stratford. Failure "of local committees to keep, side-lines dear. The statement of Mr. Masters of the referee being incompetent, as reported in the Argus. That all Rugby Union executive meetings should be open to the press.