REFEREE ON THE MAT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3514, 22 July 1926, Page 2

REFEREE ON THE MAT.

RUGBY UNION IMPOSES REPRIMAND. FOR- SIDE-LINE COMMENT. At Tuesday night’s weekly meeting of the Horowhenua Rugby Council J. Sad ( d, referee) 'of the Fourth grade match Levin D.H.S. v. Foxton D.H.S., played on the local racecourse on July 3rd, reported W. Neville, referee, of Foxton for “unseemly conduct” towards him during the progress of the match. As a result of a similar charge being made against him at the meeting of the Referees’ Association Mr Neville was “disqualified for life” by that body. Those present at the Council meeting were Messrs J. J. O’Connor (in the chair), Emmett (secretary of the Referees Association), Robson, Hannan, Rimmer, Procter, McDonald, Bran, Winiata, Lynch, S. Austin, W. Neville, F. Robinson and the secretary (Mr. Casey.) Mr. Sadd the complainant referee, was also in attendance.

Before dealing with the charge, Mr. Neville asked that all witnesses be ordered out of the.meeting.

Chairman: We will hear both sides of the argument first. Mr. Sadd then substantiated his report by saying that on the day in question he was refereeing a fourth grade match in Foxton. A little befor half-time Neville said to him “Hey mate! Good God, Can’t you referee better than that.” Witness turned round and asked why and Neville replied: “You are no referee!” Told Neville if he didn’t “close his trap” and get out he would order him off the ground, and also remarked that lie did not know who Neville was, nor did he care. Witness did not think it was a fair thing for a man in Neville’s position to dictate to him while he was refereeing.

The Chairman: Where any people within hearing?—A few on the line. Mr. Emmett: How long was the game held up?—A minute. Players could not help hearing the remark. Did not know the names of the players. Neville did not go on to the field of play, but stood two or three yards off the line, and it was when witness came out to the line for a line-out that the remark was passed. Mr. Neville: You charge me with unseeming behaviour? —Yes. It was very bad behaviour to interfere while I was refereeing.

To Mr. Neville witness said that he had only been refereeing this year and had been doing third and fourth grade work. Could not say how many, matches he had refereed. Admitted frequently penalising Foxton players for offside and obstruction. The Chairman: This is not in order. Mi'. Neville: I claim the right to cross examine. . Mr. Emmett: I rise to a point of order. This is not right. A discussion then arose as to whether Mr. Neville could cross-ex-amine the referee. Asked how he pleaded to the charge of using unseemly behaviour, Mr. Neville said “Not guilty.” Mr. Sadd: Does that mean you deny speaking to me ? Mr. Casey to Mr. Neville: D.o you wish to prove Sadd incapable as a referee? —Yes. Mr. Casey: That is not for us to decide. It has no bearing on the ease. . ■

The Chairman to Mr. Neville: You may cross-examine the referee on what was said. Mr. Neville: But I must lead up to a point. I will abide by your ruling however. The Chairman: I will ask the committee if they will allow crossexamination. Mr. Hannan moved that Mr. Neville was out of order in dealing with the facts of the game and that he not be allowed to cross-examine the referee in reference to penalties. This was seconded by Mr. Rimmer and carried. Air. Neville: Well, I can’t go on with the case. The only chance I have is by cross-examination. The Chairman: Did you use the words Sadd accuses you of using? —No. , .

Do you deny speaking to him? —No. Air. Neville said he was given the right to cross-examine the referee at the Referees’ Association meeting.

Air. Casey: The referee has sole charge of a game and no one has the right to discuss the game. Air. Emmett said that it was acknowledged etiquette that referees help each other and it was quite in order to telFa referee’ of any errors n U half .time*.- If that etiquette was broken then the offender, if reported, was liable to. punishment. At the Referees’Association meeting Neville said Sadd had been unfair and was given jm opportunity to apologise to Sadd. This he did not do and. was expelled for life. Air. Casey: This is out of order. To-Air. Sadd : Are ..you certain of the words used? —Yes. To All- Neville: You deny them? —Yes. All-.* Casey: Then it would be m order for the two men to produce evidence pro and con on that statement. Air Neville was then permitted to ask the referee the following question : What did you blow the whistle for before I spoke to you? A lineout. Not for me? —No. How far away was I from you? —About two or three yards. , I did not treat you as if you were

(leaf?—No, but I heard you. You had your head forward. Was the game held up through those words? —The ball was not thrown out until the whistle was blown.

Witness said there were only a few spectators on the line. Saw Mr. Rhodes a few minutes after the incident. Did not see Neville again after the incident. The game was late hi starting. Was certain tho incident occurred before half-time. To the Chairman witness said he reported Neville simply to show him that when witness was refereeing he would not be interfered with. Could have got witnesses, but did rot trouble to. Mr. Robinson: Did the Referees’ Association take Rhodes’ evidence? Mr. Emmett: Rhodes said he saw nothing wrong with the refereeing. The Chairman: This is out of order. Mr. Robinson: Did he give evidence against Neville? Mr. Emmett: No, that was all. Mr Neville: Then why did you make a false statement at last week’s meeting by saying that I have been expelled on the evidence of Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Sadd? Mr. Emmett: That is false. The Chairman: Are there any minutes of the Referees’Association meeting? Mr. Emmett: Yes, but they are not written up yet. I could not give them in detail. Mr. Robinson: “On the statement of Sadd and Rhodes” is what you said last meeting. You are trying to put Neville out and you have no minutes of the meeting. It is a very serious thing to disqualify a man for life. Mr. Emmett: We have no secretary. The minutes are not yet written up. Mr. Robinson: Then you are very lax. Continuing, lie asked Sadd. if Neville made him look small with what he said or was it said between themselves. Mr. Sadd: It was meant for me. Mr. Neville contended that the referee had failed to prove his charge of unseemly behaviour. Witness spoke to Sadd in a low voice and said “Good God, man, can’t you be fair with the boys.” There was no scene. The words were said just loud enough for Sadd to hear.

To the Chairman: Made no further comment after Sadd replied. 'To Mr. Lynch: The incident took place in the second half of the game. Witness was sent for. Mr. Neville then proceeded to call his witnesses.

Mr. H. Hutchins said that on the day in question he had sent for a member of the Union as he was not at all satisfied with Sadd’s refereeing. He (Hutchins) was coach of the fourths and as there was no line-umpire that day witness took up that position. Witness was not at all satisfied with the first half, and fully intended to protest, and thought it would be advisable to have a member of the committee present, so asked a spectator to go and find one. Previously to this match the fourths had always, won. The incident happened just prior to half time.

Mr. Neville: Did you notice any difference in the game after the incident —Yes the ruling was different.

Witness did not hear what Neville said to the referee but was near enough to hear.liad it been said in a loud tone. It was possible some of the players could have heard the remark.

Mr. Winiata: Why did you want a Member of the Committee present? —To enter a protest and to see that the ruling was not satisfacory. Mr. Wtiniata: Not to cause ' ill feeling?—No. Further cross-examined witness said that he did not send for Neville hut for any memlber of the committee. Thought Sadd unfair. Had witnessed Sadd’s refereeing previously which, with one exception, had always been good. Mr. Kennedy gave evidence that the incident occurred after halftime, and corroborated previous witnesses statements. The Chairman: We do not need any more evidence. There is only a slight difference in the words used. Mr. Neville said that he was aware of the fact that Mr. Hutchins was going to protest, and thought a word oi’ two to the. referee as good as a protest. If the play had been in the first spell he would have waited until half time before addressing the referee. Mr. Emmett: Mr. Hutchins says the incident took place before half time. Mr. Neville: That is not right. I can call evidence to prove that. With that Mr. Neville opened the door to call Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Emmett: It is not right for Neville to go outside to get a witness. The Chairman to Mr. Neville: It is not right to go to the door and call a witness and wait outside for a few seconds. Mr. Neville; I won’t call him, then, if you object. The Chairman: That’s all right. Go ahead. L. McCarthy gave evidence to the effect that the incident occurred after half time. The two parties were then asked to retire and the committee further discussed the matter. Mr Austin reviewed the case and said that it was an extraordinary thing that Neville had been put out of the Referees’ Association for life on such a trivial charge. A referee in the South Island was only put out for two years for hooting anothei referee. Mr. Robinson said that Neville er-

red in speaking to the referee, but the sentence meted out by the Referees’ Association was ridiculous. For merely saying “give the boys a fair chance” he was put out for life. Mr. Casey: That has nothing to do witli us. Neville admitted speaking to the referee and in doing so lie did wrong. He moved that Mr. Neville be censured for interfering in the game. Mr. Austin: And the sentence already imposed stands? Mr. Casey: We have no jurisdiction over the Referees’ Association. Mr. McDonald seconded the motion. Mr. Emmett said Sadd was filling a gap. Neville was supposed to referee the game and turned it down. Mr. Peters was then appointed and he was also unable to take the game on. Sadd was doing his best as referee and —

The Chairman: We are not trying the referee.

Mr. Emmett said -that Neville had been particularly sent for and he should get more punishment. He had broken the rules. The Referees Association had not yet received a reply from the New Zealand Referees’ Association, hut Neville would have to apply to them if he wanted to be reinstated. Mr. Hannan said Neville was in the wrong but he had been trying to do his best. He suggested that Neville should apologise to Sadd.

Mr. Austin: When he is already expelled? Mr. Robinson: Will it have any hearing on the case if we censure Neville?

Mr. Robson: Yes. We will be upholding the Referees’ Association. He was opposed to confirming their decision. Neville had no intention of causing any scene.

Mr. Emmett: Ask Neville to apologise. for his irregularity.

Mr. Austin: I object to that

Afr. Hannan said lie would move nn amendment that Neville be asked io apologise to Sadd. Mr. Emmett seconded this.

Mr. Hannan: The whole matter lias been given too much airing. It should have been settled more amicably by the Referees’ Association.

After further discussion Mr. Hannan withdrew bis amendment and the motion was carried.

Mr. Neville was then recalled and informed of the decision, the chairman remarking that it in no way affected liis position on the Council.