ASSOCIATION.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1824, 9 August 1913, Page 12

ASSOCIATION.

(Bt Centre-Half.) SHIELD GAME AND RIOT. We Lose the "White Elephant." Well, Canterbury have come and gone, and the unexpected did not happen— Wellington did not win.' They put up a good fight, but no province, however strong, can battle against opponents plus selectors. It is not a very pretty story, view it how you like. When Mr. ,l. B. Paton, chairman of tho Wellington Football Association, handed tho Brown Shield over to Mr. W. Bamsay; manager of the Canterbury team, on Saturday evening, ho made 601110 very interesting remarks, and rather "let the cat out of the bag." He remarked, inter alia, that it was not altogether an unpleasant duty to hand over tho shield, for, although he was sorry onough to see Wellingotn lose the game, tho shield was too expensive a trophy, finnncTtiliy, to hold; at least, it had been to the Wellington Association, ne hoped, however, that such would not be the case for Canterbury, and that the shield would bo the means of promoting and inoreasing the popularity of the game in tho south. The speaker, in referring to tho day's contest, said that it was one of tho finest games he had witnessed, and in his opinion the better team had won. Mr. Paton was one of tho selectors, and perhaps after one has read the above ho may understand things a, little. The shield, it seems, has been a "white elephant" for Wellington. It is not wanted here bv the executive of the W.F.A. And.tnero it all is in a nutshell. The public and tho Management Committee liiive not got the selectors to thank for the splendid game. Those who made the match what, it proved to be were tho Canterbury players and some individual members of tho Wellington team. Even Ladies Hooted. If a section of the public were pleased with Canterbury's win, there were a large inumber who had other thoughts, and 'some five or six hundred showed it after the match. The amount of hooting at the close of the game was not edifying, and—o tempora; o mores—even ladies took part in it. It seems that we have the makings of some first-class ■ Suffra*gettes in these latitudes. Has the Betting Element Come 7' It seems, too, that betting is creeping into tho "soccer" game, and it is perhaps time that the New Zealand ■ Council and Wellington Football Association made some attempt to counteract this. How they will do it, if they ever do it at all, is of course very difficult to say, but it is certainly very undesirable. It makes for "scenes" such as we saw on Saturday. - Canterbury Brilliant, Last week I expressed the hope that the team which played the better game might win. They did. The Canterbury forwards were a treat to watch. Such work as theirs has never been seen in Wellington before. In adopting the short passing game the Red and Blacks "put it nil over Wellington." Besides this they introduced the two important elements of speed and absolute control over the ball. It is many a long day since we have seen such trapping, back-, heeling, and 6ide-stepping as Tanner, Taylor, Gorman, Bissett, Ward, ind Fnllarton showed us.' Norman, the centreforward, played a beautiful game, and was always a. "thorn in tho flesh" for Wellington. 1

Canterbury's half-backs were also an excellent combination. Fullarton and Sorivin deserve more credit than Baxter. The two first-mentioned played the game of their lives on ; Saturday, and - never made a mistake. "Alf" Cornish, tho visitors' right full-back (an old Wellington player, by the way), played one of tho best defensive games on the field. 110 was very Solid and got his side out of'a lot of trouble. Hero of the Day. Tupe, the Canterbury goalkeeper, was the hero of the day. There is no doubt that ho saved his side from- defeat during the last 15 minutes. He could not do anything wrong, and some of his saves wore magnificent. On Wellington's Play, t Wellington, on, the other hand,' were a beaten team till within 15. minutes of time. Seeing flbw they played up during tho closing stages, perhaps a draw would have been a fitting termination to tho match. If Wellington had "a'lot of hard luck" (as critics have , said), surelv they miKt admit that Canterbury also 'had a lot of hard luck. In fact, taking an unbiased view of the whole match, "Centre--Half" thinks that the amount of "hard luck" on both sides just about Blade things even in that respect. What Might Have Been. Had Vessey been in the local ranks in place of Hughe3, ho would undoubtedly have made a material difference to the forward line. Theif again, O'Shen should liave replaced Barnett. As it was, what did we see on Saturday? A lot of individual play and no combination. How could the selectors expect Barnett (playing, out of his position), to thread, his way up the field ljetween such plovers as Ward and Bissett, Baxter and Fuilartori, and past Cornish? It-, was an impossibility, and tho selectors should have realised it. When the selectors found out their mistake, they changed the forward lino completely, and after tho playors had become used to their new positions matters improved. Gibson was very prominent at kicking "Rugby" goals. He also wandered about tho field to his team's disadvantage. Hughes (oentre-foTward) was "off." In fact, ho should not have been in tho team at all. A. Lowe justified his selection, ajid played a rattling game. Until Barnett was shifted, however, Lowe could not get going, but afterwards he played excellent football. Loadsman, on tho right wing, Was neglected a great deal. In fact', ho was not given a chance. Wellington's half-backs played good games. Skinner did well, and so did Shaw, but Boots lias been seen to better advantage. Parsons was one of the best backs on the field. Like Cornisli, he saved his side on divers occasions, and thero is little doubt that had it not been for Parsons, Canterbury would have scored more goals than they did. Hollis, the .Wellington goalkeeper, justified his selection on Saturday, and played a brilliant game. He is of tho 'type who will play a good pmo one day and a bad game the next. .Saturday was one of his good days apparently, aiid he rose to the occasion, but Belhaniie would havo been just as good in the position. Whose Whistle Blew? Thero has been argument over Canterbury's winning goal. Mr. Dawson, the referee, did his best—no one could deny that— and perhaps he made a mistake. But why did the crowd make such a, hostile demonstration towards him and the Canterbury players It was a melancholy sight to see four policemen escorting tho referee to tho grandstand. In fact, so serious did the trouble become that it was deemed necessary to get, tho refereo away secretly. Ho went in by one door and out by the other. All tho time he was in the dressing-shed about 200 people were .boo-hooing outside. When the crowd realised that their "prey" had disappeared, they rushed round in "a vain attempt to intercept him. They failed, however.

As to the referee's action in allowing Canterbury to score tho winning goal, all that the writer -is going to say is this: When Mr. Dawson was a-sked by' "Centi*Half" after the match what happened, ho replied that he did not blow his whistle to discontinue the game, but for tho goalkick to bo taken. Several independent witnesses stated after the match that they heard another whistle blown by someone in the orowd, after the referee's whistle had sounded.