“TIMARU DISASTER.”

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18619, 15 July 1930, Page 13

“TIMARU DISASTER.”

DR, ADAMS ATTACKS REFEREE. By Telegraph—Press Association WANGANUI, July 14. Speaking at a dinner tendered to visiting teams. Dr. G. J. Adams, president of the New Zealand Rugby Union, referred to recent incidents at Timaru, on the occasion of the match with the Britishers. He described it as the “Timaru disaster.” The rough play reported in the match, he said, had come in the first place from a southern player. The referee had allowed play that should never have gone on. One British player had left the field with a double row of teeth marks on his side, and another of the same team had left the field with injuries far more serious. The disaster came when th-' evening paper came out before the dinner and

“whitewashed” the referee and the home team.

Dr. Adams said he did not take the matter up in Timaru, as time wculd not permit. The speaker also expressed the opinion that the Dominion’s Rugby sense had become educated along wrong lines. There was too much of the competitive element at the expense of the game. THE OTHER SIDE. A CHRISTCHURCH VIEW. The best reply to Dr. Adams is made by last night’s “Christchurch Star,” which says:— ‘‘it is reported that at a dinner at Napier on Saturday night a prominent official of the New Zealand Rugby Union made some uncomplimentary remarks regarding allegedly rough play by the Combined team against the British at Timaru on June 28. The ‘Star’s’ Rugby critic, who saw the British team in all their matches in the South Island, declares that though the game at Timaru was willing, and at times contained some glaring obstruction work, it was not the Donnybrook that some reports would lead one to believe. Most of the obstruction work came from the British players, mainly because the Combined side had not me combination and experience to bring such tactics down to a fine art. There was little more obstruction than was the case in the other matches, and on most occasions the methods passed either unnoticed or not penalised by the referees. For instance, the ball, when put in by the British scrum-half, did not often go past the first man on both sides, but was cannoned against an obstructing British foot which was put out in front of the opposing hookers. In loose scrums from the line-outs, also, three or four of the British team would enter from their wrong side.

“The whole trouble at Timaru was started by the referee’s _ omission to exercise a firm hand near’ the start of the game. Britain, who were fielding a comparatively weak team, obviously took their opponents too cheaply, and the struggle became fierce when, after a quarter of an hour’s play the visitors found themselves six points behind. Pushing and shoving in the line-outs was a feature of the play from then on, with the British team being the' more vigorous in this respect. However, one or two of the Combined forwards, and particularly one whose brother is in the New Zealand championship class as a boxer, used their elbows unnecessarily in the tight work. Play became so heated that two British players, Martindale and Rew, were at different times cautioned by the referee. It is generally believed that Rew, who distinguished himself by an exhibition of fisticuffs in the first test at Dunedin, was ordered off, but the referee declares that only a caution was given. “The Timaru game was no rougher than the first test, though it was more willing. The referee (Mr A. E. Budd) gave at Timaru one of the worst exhibitions of control in matches in which the British team figured in the South Island. “The cause of the trouble must lie firstly at the door of the visitors, whose over-eagerness to make up the unexpected leeway of six points led them to indulge in unnecessary dumping and tackling that was often either too early or too late. This over-eagerness went unchecked by the referee until the play became so rough that he had to do something to stem the tide of illfeeling. “Had he insisted on Rew leaving the field, it would have been a severe penalty for an international player. A general warning earlier in the game, followed if necessary by an ordering off, would have kept the players in check.” Dr. Adams says he did not take the matter up in Timaru, as time would not permit. The evening paper report he refers to was published on Saturday night, and he was in Timaru until Wednesday. His statement that rough play came in the first place from a southern player can be given the flattest denial. The trouble was started by British players—not Rew—in the first five minutes of the game.