FOOTBALL AND BETTING.

Shannon News, 29 July 1921, Page 4

FOOTBALL AND BETTING.

OTAKI CHARGE ENQUIRED INTO. A special meeting of the Horowhenua Referees’ Association was held last ( evening, the members present being: Messrs. .1. W. Procter, W. Thomson, M. Winiata, .1. Rose and V. Higgins (secretary). Mr Thomson was voted to the chair. The chairman stated that the meeting had been called led’ the purpose of going intq the charge against an Otaki referee,-Mr Parker, of alleged betting. Two Messrs. Tahiwi and Raker, had come up to Levin after a recent match between the two Otaki teams and laid the matter before the secretary of the Association. The secretary had consulted the members of the Association, and- it was decided that until such time a,s the matter could he dealt with it was thought advisable to ask Mr Parker to stand down) Since then Mr Parker had sent a denial to the charge, and made a request that he be brought face to face with his accusers, and that was why ihe meeting was called that night. Mr Tahiwi stated that on July 9, Otaki and Old Boys met. The referee originally appointed for the match was Mr Freeman. At about. 12.30 word came that Mr Freeman was not' available. He (the speaker) then rang up the secretary of the Union, and he I said he did not know who was referee,; hut' though that Mr Parker was appointed. The speaker then called liis club—the Otaki Club—together, and they decided to object to Mr Parker, as they heard it alleged that he had a wager on the match, and was hacking the Old Boys. However, the game was played, and Mr Parker refereed. Mr Tahiwi said,. as a spectator of the match, it was the most disorderly game he had ever seen. First of all a try was scored 17 yards behind the goal line and if was allowed.

The chairman stated that the speaker must confine himself to the point as to whether Mr Parker had the

wager.. Mr Tahiwi stated that when he came up to Levin io. lay the charge lie had mentioned that. Mr Tustin was the man Mr Parker was alleged to have had the bet with, and he also named the stakeholder. Both these gentlemen were present. Unfortunately two other witnesses had been unable to attend. Mr Baker said he had heard that there was betting on the match in question, and that Mr Parker had had a bet with Mr Tustin. The speaker said he held no position under the Union. Mr Tustin was called in, and in reply to the question as to whether he had a wager with Mr Parker, said he believed Mr Parker had written to the Association mentioning his speaker’s) name. He asked that that letter be read. The secretary said that was not so. Mr Parker had rung .up, .hut bad not written. Mr Tustin stated that on the Friday before the match a bet was made with Mr- Parker but was cried off before the match next day, when Mr Parker found he had been appointed referee. The stakeholder stated that on the Saturday morning Mr Parker rang up and stated that as he was to referee the match he asked irat the bet be called off and the /money was returned. Mr Parker stated that the bet made with Mr Tustin was a sporting bet, and when he learned that he had been appointed referee, the immediately cried the het off. He made the bet without having any idea that he was going to be appointed a referee. It was his first appointment as referee. In reply to the chair, Mr Tahiwi said he did not know that Mr Parker had cried the bet off previous to the match. The matter was then considered hv the Association, which came to the conclusion that Messrs. Tahiwi and Rake>’ were justified in (heir action; but though Hint Mr Parker had done ihe right tiling in calling his bet off when lie found lie was anpninfed referee. Mr Parker had only recently honti nominated as a referee, and probably thonah his services would not be required in that capacity, but be-must take the inquiry as a warning the' the Association was determined to

deal with cases of the kind. As he had shown 'good faith in withdrawing from the transaction, the referee was exonerated.