APPEAL FAILS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 90, Issue 85, 12 April 1946, Page 6

APPEAL FAILS

WANGANUI OARSMEN UMPIRE IN MOTOR-CAR. (Special) Wellington, April 11. An appeal by the Wanganui Rowing Association against the decision to rerow the interprovincial eights championship held at Wellington on March 23 was rejected last night by the Wellington Rovving Association. The first race was won easily by the Wanganui crew, the three other contestants, Wellington, Canterbury and Marlborough, being involved in a foul. The race was re-rowed, only Welling.on and Wanganui competing, and Wellington won by two feet. The vV.R.A. executive committee rejected Wanganui’s appeal after it had the report of the umpire for the event, Mr. A. Ross. Wanganui, in their letter, asserted dial Mr. Rots hau exceeded his powers in deciding that the race should be re-rowed. Having not followed the race in a launch, but by car, and not having been in a position to know what fouling had occurred or who was responsible, he could not make such a decision. UMPIRE’S REPORT. Mr. Ross’ report said that as efforts to procure a launch for the championship had been of no avail there had been only one alternative to cancellation of the race, and that was to endeavour to control the race from the shore. Conditions were ideal, he continued, and no possible fault could be found with the excellent start the content ants received.

After watching the race for a short while from the starting point to ensure that all was proceeding in order,” said Mr. Ross, “I moved by car to a point in Oriental Bay with the crews in sight all the time, but naturally from the side, instead of from the rear as would have been the case had a launch been available. It was while T was at this point that I saw the Wellington crew appeal. I then moved round to the Taranaki Street Wharf, where I could view the remainder of the race. “Immediately the race was over I proceeded to the Star Boating Club and received there the protest from the Wellington crew which lodged its appeal before leaving the boat. TERMS OF PROTEST

“My next action was to call together the strokes and sevens of each crew. Wellington’s protest was to the effect that they had been fouled primarily by Canterbury and secondarily by Marlborough. The protest stated that at one stage Wanganui tended to bear in towards the other crews but on being warned they immediately straightened up. “Canterbury, however, continued to bear in towards the Wellington crew, which was forced further and further towards the Marlborough crew, the final result being that Wellington were fouled by Canterbury and on the other side by Marlborough.

“Asking Canterbury for their statement, I was informed by the stroke that he admitted that the foul had taken place and that his crew were in the wrong. I questioned Marlborough who said that while they may have veered at one stage slightly towards Wellington they had straightened up and remained in their own water.*’ Mr. Ross said that he upheld Wellington’s appeal and disqualified Canterbury. He ordered the race to be re-rowed, Canterbury being permitted to participate. The first reaction of some of the crews was that they did not wish to row again. To assist them, he had pointed out to Wanganui that their win would be clouded to some extent by the fact that it would never be known whether or not they woulo have won had the crews, which had been involved in the foul, not been interfered with. Wanganui decided to re-row, but Canterbury and Marlborough did not start again “While I am aware of the efforts made to obtain a launch, tnere is no gainsaying the fact that a rowing race cannot adequately be umpired without a launch of sufficient speed to keep up with the race,” concluded Mr. Ross. The decision to reject Wanganui’s appeal is to be communicated to rowing associations throughout the country. Mr. Ross’ remarks concerning the need to provide launches for rowing events were endorsed.