ROUGH PLAY

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 219, 10 May 1932, Page 6

ROUGH PLAY

RUGBY OFFENCES MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE DEALS WITH SEVERAL QFFENDERS ONE DECISION REVIEWED The cases of two players ordered off the field during the Waikite v. Rotoiti football ,match laSt Saturday, ■ and the re-hearing of the case against Herewini, a Waikite junior player, who was stood down for the season for fighting on the previous Saturday, were dealt with by the Rotorua I Rugby Management Committee at their meeting last evening. Another case held over from last meeting was also finalised. Through a misunderstanding it was not known until too late that Herewini was waiting outside the committee room at the previous meeting and he was given no chance to state his case. It was therefore decided on the strength of a letter received from Herewini, and also beeause he was again present at the meeting, that his case-be reheard. According to the referee, Mr. T. Oneroa's report, it was distinctly stated that Herewini was ordered off for striking an opposing player. Herewini, when brought before the committee, said that he had been tackled after the referee had blown the whistle and had only swung round in an attempt to disengage himself. This action, he said, must have been taken by the referee as an attempt to strike his opponent. He denied striking a blow. Referee Disagrees The referee disagreed saying that the action was a definite blow. Mr. J. Rogers said that he considered the opponent just as much to blame, as he had tackled Herewini some seconds after the whistle was blown. Mr. L. Clarke said that his reason for moving that Herewini be put off for the season was the fact that the two previous players who had been put off

for fighting were dealt with in this manner. He considered that what was right for one was right for. the other. He then moved that Herewini be asked to make application to the union for reinstatement at the conclusion of the first round. An amendment was moved by Mr. A. G. Cottrell that Herewini be stood down for two more playing Saturdays and this was carried Mr Clarke withdrawing his motion.' Mr. T. Anderson criticised the method adopted by the committee in dealing with offending players. The players, he said, were permitted to call witnesses for their side of the case and the delegates spoke on their b'ehalf, but the referees were not given this opportunity. He then supported the actions of the referees who, he said, were controlling the games and should know what happened on the field. Severely Cautioned The case of £he Rotoiti senior player (Te Purei) held over from the previous meeting to enable him to appear before the committee was then dealt with. The referee (Mr. L. Clark) reported that the man had been warned previously for calling out "Wake up, referee," and then had been ordered off for indiscriminate kicking at the ball when an opponent was lying on top of it. He also did not leave the field immediately. The offender, when called, said that when he was kicking at the ball he had no intention of hurting the opponent but was only trying to get the ball out. After eonsiderable discussion it was decided that as the circumstances were to a certain extent in the player's favour, he be given the benefit of the doubt and severely cautioned. The referee, Mr. T. Oneroa, reported on the ordering off of the Rotoiti senior, Mirimiri Hapatu (Tom Mix) last Saturday for kicking an op-

ponent when on the ground. The referee advised that Hapatu was a dangerous player and should not be allowed to continue to play as he had previously been warned. "Did Not Kick" Hapatu said that he did not kick the opponent intentionally. He had tackled another player and was hanging on to this man when he was swung off his feet, and in being thrown had struck the player concerned. The Waikite delegate said tliat the kicked man had stated to him that he was not struck intentionally. It was decided that Hatapu be suspended until next meeting when the evidence of the Waikite player will be heard Mr. Oneroa also reported that he had ordered off M. McRae for using his fists on the field. McRae, who could not be present, explained by letter that he did not strike an opponent but might have given" the impression of doing so during an attempt to obtain the ball in a line out. The Rotoiti delegate said that he saw the incident and explained what he considered had happened. He did not think that McRae had struck anyone. McRae was given the benefit of the doubt and is to be severely cautioned.