BANNER MATCH INQUIRY.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5034, 1 October 1926, Page 2

BANNER MATCH INQUIRY.

(To the Editor.!

Sir, —In your issue of 20th inst., when reporting the Netherton-West final Banner match; your payer strongly urged the Rugby Union to investigate thoroughly the reasons for, the abandoning oft the match. Your paper practically demanded an inquiry, and I was very surprised when the “Gazette” had no reporter at the Rugby Union meeting on the s.ame night, when the referee's report wasi to be received and the matter dealt with. However, owing to obviously falsa statements in the referee’s report, and in order to enable all the players concerned to give evidence, the, inquiry was adjourned. At the next meeting of the union, on Monday evening last, your representative was present, and an account of the meeting appeared in Wednesday’s paper. I am fully aware that spa.e may not hh,ve been available for you to report all the evidence in detail, but certain matters were discussed which Were of vital importance to the reputation of the Netherton team. Thesej matters had a direct bearing on the referee’s report and, in fairness to the team, and also to the criticising public, should not have been omitted.

In the copy of the referee’s "report, ■a,s published, you will find the follow\ing statement: “Immediately Netherton left the field I declared the match in favour of West.” Further down you will read that the Rugby Uniofa ordered a re-play of the match. Naturally, your readers who have any knowledge, of the penalty attached to such conduct will say : “Why did not the union disqualify the whole of the Netherton team for five years? How on earth can they possibly order a re-play ?” He.re is the reason—the reason that should have accompanied the union’s decision in your report of the inquiry : The union waSbUnanimous in acknowledging that Netherton team did not leave the field until after the referee had blown his whistle and declared the match in favour of West. The West delegates (players in the match) also acknowledged it. The referee himself also admitted his mistake. It is hard to understand why a false statement of such a nature should have b'een made by a man conversant with the penalty attached to such an offence, and it is indeed fortunate for the Netherton team that members of the union were at the match and witnessed the incident. Otherwise they would certainly have had to act on the referee’s report and accept his statement as correct and suspend the whole team.

I think yon must admit that this, portion of the inquiry was undoubtedly the most important, apd your paper should have given the matter full publicity, considering that fifteen men, on account of a false report, narrowly escaped the ignominy of being branded as poor sports, and being denied a game for some considerable period. In fairness to the team, and considering that your papej- did not publish the above evidence, which wa,s all in favour of Netherton, would you kindly endeavour to ascertain: (1) Whether the Rugby Union censured the referee for not being morej careful in preparing his report; (2) whether the referee apologised to the Netherton Club for having made a false statement, in writing, concerning them; (3) whether the referee contemplates doing so in the n'e.ar future.

A. R. MORRISON, Secretary, Netherton Football Club. [The report referred to was a reasonably full one, and the finding of the union naturally showed that the statement of the referee was recognised- as wrong by the. union when the match wasi ordered to be. 'replayed. Many statements were. made in committee which were not open to us for publication. The evidence against the referee’s charges was clearly indicated in the report by the statements of .all the witnesses,. With reference to the three questions, these are matters for your delegates and the union.—Ed.]