A TRENCHANT CRITICISM OF RUGBY ADMINISTRATION.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 23 July 1910, Page 3

A TRENCHANT CRITICISM OF RUGBY ADMINISTRATION.

To the Editor

Sir,—l have read with some atnazenienlb the doings of the management committee as chronicled in your paper. No doubt the individual members of the committee are very estimable gentlemen, but apparently as Ithe 'administrative body of the Ho row-hernia Rugby Union they liavon't quite realised the responsibilities of their position aiul that according as (their adm'nist ration if firm or weak, so consequently will our local football be clean or otherwise. In deviling with players reportod by referees, the committee, in meting out lenient sentences, has almost set a premium on foul play, and the consequence is that every Saturday players are stood down by refeveeSj and the committee rises in its wrath and demands an apology or imposes a fortnight's suspension—just to uphold the referee. The sentences are not imposed with a view merely to save the face of the referee. Take the case reported in Thursday's paper—is it feasible or possible that a referee would put a man off for just making the comment the offender admitted? If the committee intends to continue as it has been doing, I would suggest that it pass a resolution permitting referees to accept apologies on the ground! Tt would save the committee being mentally perturbed, at any rate, and the referees a lot of 'trouble in making out reports. I contend that the committee must deal out adequate sentences ito offenders reported by referees if the game is to be kept clean, and if the management committee .is not prepared to do that I guess tlia/t----they'd, better make way for men who would bo prepared to grasp the situation and administer with a firm hand. Regarding the protest entered by the Taiinii team, I take it 'that it was a frivolous one, and it should have been grasped firmly with both hands and thrust into the waste paper basket — and the deposit should have been confiscated. The grounds of the protest are absurd, for it is recognised ruling (page 22 N.Z. Referees' Handbook) that the referee is sole judge of fact. A goal is disputed and the time is also questioned: surely in such a case the referee would have reported anything extraordinary in the w.iv of cutting short the time, etc., and as regards the goal—he ruled ft. a goal and even if all the line umpires in the Union swore to ■'lie contiaiy, it would still lie a fo'il However, I have it from the rt[eree himself that the match ran the full time, and that there was no doubt about the goal. Tt appears to me that committee was in a desperate hurry to hear what the line umpires had to >av but T contend if it had waited m - til /tlio referee had been Tntervh ved by the committee it wo:i:'l have been much more courteous. Tn conclusion T may state that f quite recognise +1 unit the corn>-.i tt->e has a most trying position to fill, and one that begets iiio/a l icks than pence: hut T maintun that the committtee has ;.r.<eif If to a great exten. Tliv ->i\ i' h:,r. the remedy in its own haiy's and it is for the members to apply it — T am, etc., CLEAN SP'.ll'T