THE HUIA-AWAHOU MATCH.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 3708, 6 September 1906, Page 2

THE HUIA-AWAHOU MATCH.

IN REPLY TO MR J. E; MARSHAL!^ [IO THE EDiTOJt ] Sir,— lt is with no desire to trespass unduly on your space that I deem it my duty to reply to J; E. Marshall’s remarks in last issfie relative fco the above match; Td commence with, in adhering to the motto “honour to whom honour is due,” I must commend your correspondent for straightforward utterances. Whatever his faults —we all have faults! —he speaks his mind. But that his mind is at fault on the point at issue is open to serious question. J. E. Marshall is privately reputed for his love of controversy, his love of argument and debate, and in such he has always been known as strong-headed and self-willed. Hence it is not surprising to note that he rushes into public print and so causes a re-action over a matter which should have been allowed to rest peacefully with the verdict of the Foxton football authorities. However, your correspondent (who evidently glories in signing himself 1 ‘ One of those Suspended ”) has elected to criticise, and further, he has tried his hand at ridicule. Therefore, he must not take offence if his theoretical criticism is explodedas possessing nothing but the ‘ ‘arrant rubbish ” he speaks of, and his dreams of ridicule pictured as real happenings with the idiocrity looming on his side. It is rather surprising to note that a gentleman of Mr Marshall’s professed thoughtfulness should act in such bad taste as to attempt to influence intelligent readers that his side were perfectly within their rights in leaving the field, as Huia did in the recent match. No unbiased spectator who viewed the match will be found supporting Mr Marshall’s contention, say what he may, and I may claim his attention by reminding him that wrongs do not make a right. 1 sonally, I may state that, though secretary, I exercised no vote on the recent trouble. I was there to state facts as apparent to me. However, it would be false on my part to hide the fact that I fully approve ot the sentences meted out to Huia offenders. And bear in mind I say this as an unbiased sport, not as referee or one interested. What sane person can but approve of the Sub-Union’s action in this matter ? Mr Marshall would have us believe that there is no dignity of the referee to be upheld. His sentiments certainly infer this. As referee of the match in question, it would not be good taste on my part to refer to your correspondent’s remark that when a referee makes the succession of mistakes that occurred in the rulings on the Huia-Awahou game, it is only natural that such irritation should arise. I will leave that point to those conversant with rules who viewed the game to judge for themselves. But I cannot help saying Mr Marshall’s version of the rules must be in distinct contrast to my knowledge, judging by his remark that a succession of mistakes were made by myself. By asserting that it is rubbish to bring such foolish argument forward as that “the referee can’t see everything,” Mr Marshall would have us believe a referee should be super human. Personally, I defy the best referee to see every infringement that takes place in a game of Rugby, and your correspondent must know this to be true, though it does not suit him to say so. If he should only make known any of these super-natural beings, they will be hailed as gods and will supply a long felt want in football circles. If Mr Marshall's sentiments could be taken seriously we

may dream of a football paradise without the possibility of mistake by referees or cousequent wrangling of teams. But, sad to relate, it must be realised only as a dream, n®t as an actual reality, and Mr Marshall could "not have referred to the matter conscientiously. I do not wish to twit him with misdoings, but possibly he is suffering from the pangs of suspension, despite the fact that he heartily exclaims, with much professed bravado, “All honour to our captain for having the grit to object in so decided a manner as he did.” Can such be the truthful sentiments at heart ofa professedly learned man ? No ! It raay...be> true that have as much claim - as the referee to a sound judgment of the incidents of the game, but as to the inference that players have more claim, as instanced in the flagrant mistake made at the end of the game in question, I am afraid if the matter were left to the decision of all

present, the vote takeu'lwould be sufficiently overwhelming to convince even your strong-willed ► is* r r£spondent that his assertions possessed much of the 11 arrant rubbish ”he spoke of. Much of the twaddle' _ written agitating players to believe they have the Saule powers as referees cannot be taken seriously, and must be judiciously ignored and treated with contempt. Evidently a wave Of Goliath prowess momentarily overcame the writer of such sentiments, which are not conducive to the w r eltare of the game. There is some truth in the statement that bad feeling and rough play are caused through the erratic decisions of referees, but not by far the percentage your correspondent states ; in plain language, this friction is mainly caused through a want of football etiquette and good sense on the part of players, such as instanced when Huia left the field ; and Mr Marshall should admit this as truth. Throughout his epistle, your correspondent aims straight-out at the rulings of the referee (myself) of the match in question, but as such relate to personal qualifications it would not be good taste to deal with them, much as I would like to. However, his assumption that referees do refereeing because they like it may be right in a small degree, but certainly not in Foxton, for if that were so, we (SubUnion) would not have the difficulty we experience in arranging for referees to do us a kindness by holding the whistle. That Mr J. E. Marshall should elect to write in such bad taste and thus strive to hinder the possibility of amicable relations between referees and players is a matter for regret, and he cannot expect the sympathy oi the real enthusiast if he prefers to hold himself up to ridicule by penning such assertions as appeared in your issue of Tuesday. While sympathising with him in the attitude he heatedly adopted in the recent ;n .tch, I cannot commend him for the manner in which he attempts to picture himself and other offenders in the right, by unsuccessfully attempting to ridicule the Sub-Union and its unbiased referees. No body who cater for sport as sport could have ignored the gross conduct of those suspended members of the Huia Club, and no argument can convince sound thinking people that Huia were in the right. In hope that your correspondent may realise the folly of his penmanship and the false impressions young players are apt to glean therefrom, I conclude my reply. E. G SuTHKR I.AND.