No Replay Of Rugby Game For Rahui Fourths

Chronicle (Levin), 14 July 1949, Page 2

No Replay Of Rugby Game For Rahui Fourths

A request by the Rahui Football Club that the fourth grade match between Rahui and College, played on July 2 and won by College 6 — 3, has not been agreed to b.v the Horowhenua Rugby Union. It was made on the ground that the referee changed his decision in regard to a penalty kick'. When the matter came before last week's meeting of the pnion's management compiittee, it was de-ci-ded to ask the referee, Mr. J. J. McDonald, and touch judge, Mr. M. J. Julius, to attend the committee's meeting on Tuesday night, which they did. The referee explained that he had awarded a penalty to Rahui and the kick was taken. ' One umpire (Mr. Julius) had raised his flag.but the other (Mr. A. V. Chappell) had not done so. Mr. McDonard added that in his opinion the kick was unsuccessful and he emphatically denied having blown his whistle, bec&use there was no goal and the ball had not been forced. The chairman, Mr. R. L. Robinson, said the referee was very definite that he had not blown his whistle and it, therefore, appeared that the matter -could not be pursued further. Mr. Juiius told the meeting that in his opinion the kick was successful. On the other hand, Mr. Chappell ha-d commented that the ball was not over his post. At half-time the referee informed him that he had disallowed the kick because the judges had differed. In reply to. a que^tion by Mr. A. Watt (Rahui), Mr. Julius said he was uncertain as to whether or°not the referee had blown his whistle'. His club was on'y asking that the game be replayed, said Mr. Watt. He was of the -opinion that the referee had ruled that the kick was a goal, otherwise he would not have taken the tearns back with the intention of resuming at the half-way mark, then changing it to the 25. He moved that the game be. replaye'd. It was seconded by Mr. S. Mattar (Foxton). Mr. J. A. Zuppicich (Referees' Association) : What is the ground for the motion? is it that the referee changed his decision? Mr. Watt replied that he had moved his motion on the ground that the referee' had changed his decision. He did not think the referee had altered his decision, said the chairman. It appeared, how.eyer^liat he had made a mistake in the line to kick off from, but that could easby be done. At no time was anyone justified in saying that the referee had awarded a goal, said Mr. C. E. Wiseley (schools' delegate). At no time had he told even the players that it was a goal. Mr. McDonald had stated very firmly that he had not blown his whistle. Mr. Zuppicich commented that a referee had no power to blow his whistle under such circumstances unless there was a goal or the ball had been made dead. He had said that neither of these requirements had applied in the case under discussion. The motion was then put to the meeting and lost on the voices.