THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 888, 6 August 1910, Page 12

THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME.

JURISDICTION OF REFEREES. , (By H. B. Card.) The following is tlio substance of an interesting paper recently read by Mr. H. E..Card before members of the Wellington Referees' Association r— ' Tho. spirit. of the game is briefly that each side shall have an equal advantage, to play the ball, and the referee's duty is to see that such is the case.' The question. at once arises as to, whether a referee is justified in stopping'"the game to enforce the penalty when ho sees one side gaining an advantage from a trivial breach of the laws, say, in the centre of the field, or should he use his own discretion as to how great an advantage the side breaking the law i 8 going to gain? Uss of the Whistle. We all know that at times we have been accused of making; too free use of the whistle, thoreby" killing the game from the . spectators' point of view.. We have also this year seen it stated that a referee through lack of the . use of the whistle was practically responsible for certain happenings. While admitting that a' game can .be killed by "too much whistle," 1 say that it is not in the power •of any referee to make a game attractive to the spectators no matter how capable that official may be. And why? Simply because our cup competitions are so keenly contested. Tho one thought of the teams Is to win, and if they can do 60 by forward rushes, tight scrums, line-kicks, and otb.or forms of close, play, they are not going to throw over these methods and provide "fireworks" for tho public by attempting back play, and the referee has no power to try and make them adopt this style of play. A Spectators' Bogey, When discussing the laws of tho gasio I have often heard it said that in the "spirit of the game" a referee should rule so and so in particular cases. That is, tho referee should overlook certain breaohes of the rules when it is apparent that bright spectacular back play is going to follow such breaches. My contention is that there is no such thing aa_ this bogey, erroneously called the "spirit of the game," in so much that it should enter into the referee's ruling. As on example, let us suppose that Athletic are playing St. James. Lot us assume that Athletic are endeavouring to keep tho play tight, and that the game has been somewhat monotonous to watch. Presently one of the St. James men, when just a little off-side, manages to secure the.ball, and get it away to his backs. A brilliant passing rush is imminent. Is the referee j ustified in overlooking the infringement in order to provide the public with the play they are olamouring for ? Are wo as referees to consider the public before the players and the teams? I say no. If one team chooses to play a close game, we havo no power to overlook breaches, of the rules simply to satisfy the public. s No Room for Sentiment. ' A referee is placed on exactly the samo footing as an official of sport. He is there to role according to tho laws of the game he controls and has no right whatever to allow sentiment to enter into the question. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind, that the onus is on tho players to play the game in the spirit in which the laws are written. And here let me refer to tho question of obstruction by citing a common case. A forward is getting through the ruck with the ball at his toe when one of his opponents obstructs him and prevents his playing the ball. A player on tho offending side picks up and kicks well down field to touch. The referee has no option but to bring play back and award a free-kick to the side obstructed, no mattor how much, discomfiture may be evinced by the spectators. Such cases of wilful infringement are far too prevalent in our football and if such offending players would but play the gamo in the proper spirit, there would be no necessitv for tho man in charge of the game to "use tho whistle. I think you will agree with mo that with few exceptions the teams are out to win every time even if thev break every rule in tho book. But 1 will say. that when caught breaking the law they invariably bow to the whistle,

School Football Bright. The reason why our college and school football always provides a good spectacular display of llugby—a game' the majority of the public look forward to— is that they are well trained, havo a fair knowledge of the rules, and above all play thu gaum in trtm spirit, with hard, olean, tackling and an evident desire to observe tho rules as far as possible. No one can convince mo that tho referee has anything to do with making these games attractive. It is the players themselves who aro responsible for it. The Advantage Rule. Where we referees fail is in the wlministration of tho "advantage rule." Wo are too ready to blow tho whistle directly a rule is infringed instead of waiting to see which side gains the advantage accruing from tho infringement. This advantage rale gives us a great opportunity of keeping the game going and yet I am sorry to say that we do not avail ourselves of it to the extent that we should. Example: Blues are attacking with a passing rush and a Red man, who is off-side, tackles the Blue five-eighths, who just manages to make a pass. The referee sees that the centre-three-quar-ter (Blue), who takes the pass, has his wing man supporting him in an-advan-tageous position. There should be no whistle for a free-kick, with a doubtful three points attaching thereto, when there is every prospect of five points attending the successful culmination of the passing rush. Likewise, when the rule concerning the "ten-yards limit" is infringed it is> no use awarding a freekick if the 'side offended age.inst has already got in a 40-yards line kick. Conclusion. In conclusion in answer to the question: "Are referees justified in ruling according to the public's notion of the spirit of the 1 game?" I say "No." This "spirit of the game" is, to my mind, a myth. Referees no right whatever to rule on sentimental lines. If every referee ruled according to his own version of what would ulease the public there would be no uniformity of rulinu. for referees, like lawyers and doctors, will differ.