FOUR MEMBERS PROTEST AGAINST DECISION.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17881, 24 June 1926, Page 1

FOUR MEMBERS PROTEST AGAINST DECISION.

LUCAS NOT ASKED TO APOLOGISE. (Special to the “ Star. ”) AUCKLAND. June 24. The decision was arrived at after a protracted inquiry. After the inquiry both men were brought back before the meeting and cautioned as to their future behaviour. A resolution was also passed commending the referee for the firm stand he had taken. During the discussion there was considerable difference of opinion as to what punishment should be meted out. Three amendments were put and lost before the first motion was carried. Four members of the management committee asked that their votes against the motion should be recorded. The referee’s report on the occurrence was brief and tg the point. It stated:— “During the progress of the game Marist v. Ponsonby seniors Webber (Ponsonbv) was ordered off for punching an opponent on the ground, and Lucas for obscene language to the referee.” The case of Webber was taken first. Addington his report. Mr Pemberton said that the matter had been exaggerated. O'Brien, the Marist captain, did not appeal to him. Webber had another man on the ground and was punching away at him. lie had no option but to order him oft. On being called Webber completely denied the charge. lie said that there was no punching on either side. “I was getting up off the ground after a forward scramble.” stated Webber, “and he ordered me off. O’Brien appealed, but he shut him up. Then Lucas came round and he ordered him off Mr Belcher: This is not the first time. Webber: No. I was ordered off last year. I hit a man in self-defence.

Mr Tilley: Did you see the Marist captain appeal to the referee? Webber: Yes. Me went up to him Mr Tilley: Did you hear him? Webber: From what the other fellows said the referee told him to shut up. Webber, further stated that the/incident occurred during a forward mix-up. He was getting off the ground when someone called out, “Look at this.” The referee, who had his back turned from the scene, looked round and forthwith ordered him off. lie “lost his temper.” The question of what should be done in the case of Webber was held over till the Lucas case was considered. In this, the referee detailed the words used. Mr Nicholson: I would like to ask if the referee does not consider it would have been wise to have asked Lucas to apologise, and if he did not then to order him off. - Mr Gray: The referee is not here on hi:; trial. Mr Pemberton(to Mr Anderson) : O’Brien did not appeal to me. Lucas did. Called before the meeting. Lucas denied using the yords complained of, but admitted using a somewhat similar expression. "I admit that I lost my temper,” said Lucas, “but it was such a ridiculous thing. Nine-tenths of the players in Auckland are being spoilt by the 1 referees. So long as the)’ go on like this, they will kill forward play here. There were no blows struck. At the most it was a wrestle. When I made the remark I was 20 yards away. I said it to myself and I had my back turned to him.” After the referee and the two players had retired the meeting considered both Mr Kronfeld then moved the resolution which was subsequently carried. Several members, however, expressed opposition to letting the two men off without further punishment, contending that neither man had shown contrition for what he had done. Strong exception was also taken to Lucas’s attitude and to his reference to referees in general. The first amendment was that both

111111111(111111811111111111111111111111111111131111' men should be ordered to stand down one playing Saturday. This was lost, only two voting for it. A further amendment, that Lucas should stand down for two playing Saturdays and that Webber should be severely cautioned was also lost, four voting for it. A third amendment, that Webber be cautioned and Lucas suspended till he apologised to the referee met with a similar fate. The motion was then carried, Messrs Anderson, Potter, Belcher and O’Brien asking that their votes be recorded against it. On the motion of Mr Tilley, a further resolution was added commending the referee for the stand taken. Mr Anderson: He's already been turned down. Tt seems absurd. The chairman (Mr IL Frost) : That is an expression on a matter of opinion. Mr Anderson: I;ti disgusted. When Webber was brought back and the decision of the meeting communicated to him, together with an admonition from the chairman as to his future behaviour, he endeavoured to speak. “That’s enough,” said the chairman, and Webber retired. Lucas was.next dealt with. At the conclusion of the chairman’s remarks, Mr Kronfeld asked: “May J ask if Mr Lucas apologised for the remark?” Mr Frost: I can't allow the question. Lucas: I don’t think that 1 should apologise. The chairman then indicated that the matter was closed. At a later stage, G. Stevens (North Shore) and P. Dunn (EUerslie), who had been ordered off last Saturday on a charge of fighting, were similarly dealt with.