Football Club's Dispute With Union

Chronicle (Levin), 14 June 1949, Page 4

Football Club's Dispute With Union

The Horowhenua Rugby Union's decision to take np action in regard to a request from the Paraparaumu club 'that the union should withdraw a letter cautioning the club • for rough play in its match against Otaki on May 28 has" brought unexpected repercussions. The olub has caneelled its affiliation whh the union and withdrawn its teams from the senior and fourth grade competitions. (; The decision to take this action was made at a general mee'Ling of the clu,b last week, when there was an attendance of 93 members. Consequently the club did not field its teams on Saturday last. The mafoer was discussed at considerable length by the meeting, at the conclusion of which the following resolution was carried unanimously: "That in view of the unjust accusation levelled at the c'ub by 'Ihe union in its letter of June 3 in regard to. rough play by its team in the Otaki-Paraparaumu match on May 28, andi also the refusal of the union to the request of this club for the withdrawal oi

hiiG Jeuer conoQ/iiiiiig biiB unjusu charges, the club feels that it has ho other redress than to cancel its affiliation with the union." The resolution contained the -fol.owing reasons for this decision: — Firstly, it is the considered opinion of this club that the referee, being the so'e control of the game, has (he full responsibility for keeping the game from becoming rough. "Secondly, that one player in the Paraparaumu- team was; warned by the referee in this match when he threatened to retaliate against anopposing player who had struck him.

"Thirdly, that an appeal to the referee by the captain of the Paraparaumu team, who had been" punehed on the face by an opposing p ayer, and who was still attempting to strike him agsin, resulted in the referee giving a general warning to both sides that if there was any more rough play he would call the game off. Our club considers that the general warning was unjust 'to any unoffending player and that the offending player should have beeri ordered off the field. "Fourlldy, the union, by Its action in dismissing the case against a player who was ordered off the field by the referee 'on the grounds of mistaken identity' has admitted that the referee commi'tted an injustice to the player concerned. ' "Fifthly, it is. the considered opinion of this club that -the union has failed to take the correct action to prevent rough plav in that' it has side-stepped; the i'ssue by placing the responsibility on the clubs instead of the referee."