HOROWHENUA RUGBY UNION.

Shannon News, 23 May 1924, Page 3

HOROWHENUA RUGBY UNION.

The -Management Committee of the above Union met at Levin Tuesday Present: Messrs E. j\ T asii (chairman;, T. O'Bourke, 8. Austin, Hardies, 0. Diniock, J. Kobiasun, J. O'Connor, J. W. Itimiuer, and L. t s. Carniichael (secretary). An apology for absence was received from Mr. Hutchins. After the minutes had be'en read, but not confirmed, Mr. O'Connor stated that the name of Bub George 'had been up for reinstatement some time ago, had then been turned down, but now granted. A suspension iii - regard to Miles had been treated in a similar way, and he asked when would Jiuality be arrived at. If the Union refused to reinstate players it should stick to it, by chopping and changing it made the present body look "crook." Reinstating Players.

The secretary stated that Miles application had gone through, but there had been no motion relative to George, the discussion about him being allowed to drop. Mr. O'Connor: 1 object to any old senior players being reinstated as a junior, and move that any such application in the future be refused. * Mr. Kobinson pointed out that the Union's rules were clear on this point and that Mr. O'Connor was out of order. The minutes were tlien adopted. Injured Players. Correspendenc'e was read from various club:-, reporting that players had been injured.—Held over for future consideration. The Claridge Incident. IT. McDonald j,\ rote applying for reinstatement. It was pointed out, thai tlii.s player ' had been suspended for life owing to the Claridge incident at .Shannon, while th'e secretary I'C-inted out that the suspension could only be uplifted by the N.Z.R.U. .Mr. O'Connor favoured the s u spea- '< sion standing, staling that the Union had fully considered the matter on its merits and that members were unanimous in suspending McDonald. lie did- not believe in uplifting suspensions. It was no wonder the Union could not get referees seeing that sus? pensions were lifted. Mr. O'Kourko considered it only fair that a man should be heard, and main- ; tained that if a man could prove he ; was innocent ho, was entitled to a hear j iug. The Union could act as judge. j Mr. Austin in supporting this stated; thai: McDonald may be able to tender ] fresh evidence; he saw no harm in | hearing him. j

In answer to Mr. O'Connor the secretary stated, that the Union had heinMcDonald's evidence at the tine of the trouble. McDonald was unable to appear at the present time owing to illness. It was decided to hold the matter over till next Tuesday when McDonald would be heard. No Gate. The Shannon Club wrote stating there had been no "gate" last Saturday on account of the wet weather. A Complaint. • R. 8. Sloan, secretary of the Referees' Association, wrote stating that during the Rovcr-llahui match at Otaki W. 11. Bowd'en had stood on the goal line and had refused, when requested, to get off. Iu consequence the game had been held up for a quarter of an hour, and he had been instructed to report the case to the Rugby Union, to deal with.

Mr. Dimock considered the ground -was not controlled by Ihe Union fii the time of thfc occurrence, but the * secretary held that the 'Union had the provisional use of the ground, it being tr ran ted on a t ls per cc:iv. basis. The Borough Council was not' giviug up complete control of the ground. Hockey, which was going to be detrimental to football, was going to be allowed on the ground. It,appeared to 3iiin that the Union was keeping the ground in order for hockey. Mr. OMtourlcc pointed out that the Union did not keep the ground in order, the Otaki Club did so. The footballers had tlv full use of the ground, but the hockey dubs were Doing allowed to play. They could, however, be stopped from playing. The Union had been charging ladies sixpence admission to the ground, but they wtsre now being admitted free. All'men, whether hockey players or not, would have to pay Is. There had been no objection to this last Saturday. Mr. Bowden had proved a nuisance on the day in question, but still he would not like to sm him put off the ground for life as had been suggested. He should, however, be cautioned. Mr. O'Connor said the Union -could not ehurge admission to such grounds except ou'l4 days a year, this being allowed by Act of Parliament. _ Any . man could go on public domains on o'llirjr days and could not bo stopped — he could only be disqualified on the 1-1 days.

Mr. Hardie: A man in Shannon had been disqualified. Mr. O'Rourkc moved that Mr. Bowden be reprimanded. Mr. O'Connor: Members of the » Union should get conversant with the rufcs of tire domain. Mr. Hardie seconded the motion, which was carried. Moutoa's Protest. The Moutoa Club wrole . protesting against the ruling of Mr. Phillips (referee), stating members were penalised on num'erous occasions contrary to tlu? laws of the game. Mr. Austin suggested that if the match affected the result of the championship it be re-played.—-Held over till next meeting. Rahul's Pr test. The Kahui Football Club wrote strongly protesting against decisions given by Mr. Udy in their match with TTni Mni at Mnnnkau on .Saturday, and in support of the letter several members attended and gave evidence. They also protested against a man named iL'anipp playing:.—This latter matf'er, however, wag later withdrawn, there - being a misunderstanding over thisplayer. Mr. Carmiehacl stated that the club had scored a try, but it had been disallowed, the-referee ruling that "rabbiting" had been indulged in. If rabbiting had bffen indulged in was the referee right in giving a 'kick out at

the 25's yards flag, Should Mr. Udy kavju not given a scrum or free kick where the broaeh occurred? This was the club's grounds of protest. The club's protest read as follows: "That the rulings of the referee were not consistent with the rules of Rugby as set down by the New Zealand Rugby Referees' Association. (a) That a member of the Rahui team scored a try which was disallowed by the referee, and in point of law his ruling is wrong.- (b) That the free kick when the last goal was kicked for Hui Mai was not in accordance with the aforesaid rules." Mr. O'Rourke: The referee's ruling is final—the Union must uphold him! Mr. O'Connor considered the deputation should not have made the trip from Otaki till requested to do so, but this, secretary disagreed, holding t>hey had every right to attend. Mr. Austin: -They should be hoard! Mr. Udy, on being called in, said he was certain tho Rahui men never scored a try as stated, holding that a man could not crawl along on his stoma.cn with the ball and score. He penalised the player who did so by ordering a scrum —he. never gave a free kick." In tho other case under dispute the ball was passed forward by a Rahui player and Hui Mai in consequence received a freo kick. The kick was given in the correct place and not at a wrong point. Members of the Rahui Club were then heard in support of their protest. Mr. Tooby, as secretary, said he desired to make "it clear that Rahui had nothing against the Hui Mai Club. The players of that club had played a clean game, had proved good sportsmen, and the protest was regretted. If not lodged, however, an injustice would be done to football in general. The referee's rulings, he'considered, were not consistent with the rules of Rugby, and he suggested that Mr. Udy be cross-questioned. Tho Rahui members would also give evidence. Mr. S. Parker was first called, and after drawing a diagram of tha Jic'd, slated that the ball had been sent from Flu toy to Batten, a distance of (50 that Mr. Udy had ruled off-side, but that the kick "had not been given 'where the breach occurred. Mr. Udy contended th(s ball was not kicked across 60 yards as stated by Parker, but was thrown forward at a distance of about four ya':ds. Mr. Tooby: Flutey was a fivc-'eigihth and Batten three-quarter! Ralph Thomsou supported Parker, while Flutey, as captain of the club, said he distinctly saw Cooper- score a try and heard the referee say it was disallowed on account of rabbiting. He, however, gave a kick out at the 25. The Manakau line umpire had admitted it Avas a try. Ho saw" no rab; biting. He remembered the kick Hui Mai scored from, and knew that Mr. Udy had given a fi'ee kick at the wrong place. Mr. Cooper said he scored two tries, one at the corner when Mr. Udy gave a 25 yards kick off. On the second occasion Mr. Udy said he rabbited. Cooper said he .did not do so —hi: went clean over the line and scored fairly. Mr. Udy, however, gave a 25 yards kick. I

Mr. Slack-considered Cooper scored fairly, heard Mr. Udy say he had rabbited, and knew him to take the ball for a kick-off at the 25's. He considered the decision a wrong one. Mr. Tooby said the club was protesting on Mr. Udy's ruling, maintaining that he could not make rules of his own. The club would have to abide by the Union's ruling, and, said Mr. Tooby, the club wished to congratulate Hui Mai for being such good sports, and if the protest was won Rahui would also proviu they were sports. The penalty inflicted by Mr. Udy made all the difference to the game, which was lost by Rahui by two-penalty goals to a try. Mr. Puti gave evidence on the same lineiJ as others. Mr. Dimock said he was unprepared for the protest and thought-it best to defer consideration, but this was not agreed to, the secretary holding that Hui Mai had received notice and should have been prepared. Mr. Udy-considered the Rahui a very gentlemanly- (?) club, and stated that no sooner had he started the gamo than someone called out "we arc

counting the free kicks you are giving to-day." The remark did not influence him.

Mr. Tooby said he never heard such a remark passed, and if uttered he was sorry.

1 Mr. Furst then gave evidence on bc- | half of Mr. Udy, stating that he (Udy) had done wliat was correct. * | Mr. Udy said ho ruled the game as , it should have be'on ruled, and what he bad done was the correct thing. He admitted mistakes might occur; any ; referco was liable to be wrong at times. He was convinced that he gave a scrum for rabbiting, and a kick at the correct place. Mr. Tooby: Can a referee penalise a man for rabbiting by giving a.. 2."> { yard kick out? Can a referee penalise I n man for off-side play and give a free kick 30 yards from whore the breach occurred? Mr. Dimock again, objected to the j matter being settled while he was unprepared to combat argument. Mr. Tooby stated the Hui Mai had received the protest and it was therefore their duty to attend. In this he was upheld. The chairman said Mr. Udy had stated everything had been, above board, and ho saw nothing but to accept the referee's decision and to uphold him. This was supported by other members. On the matter being madia known to "the Rahui Club Mr. Tooby asked could he apply to the N.Z. Union for a I decision. He also requested that Mr. I Udy be not appointed for matches ! where his club was concerned. j The chairman referred him to the I Eeferee's Association. J Mr. Sloan, secretary to this body, J said rho club wanted certain referees, { yot not one referee was available from

Otaki. Mr. Pa rata, he said, would not referee in that township. The chairman considered it might be •better to accede to Baliui's wishes, Especially as there was feeding - between the club and Mr. Udy. Mr. Tooby: We want no ill-feeling, we don't want trouble, but wc do want fair play. Mr. Sloan: Wo will try and get someone else to referee your matches. It was djecided to return the deposit of £l. Miscellaneous. The Marlborough Union wrote r'oI questing that matches be played in the I south.—The secretary pointed out that the trip would cost £lB2, while £">o extra would be required for incidentals. Mr. O'Connor favoured this tour, but the chairman said the Union was not in a position to stand the expense. In consequence of this he thought it best to hold the matter over.—Agreed to. Norman Gill (Shannon) applied for re-instatoment as a junior, pointing out that thi! doctor had advised him to take, this step, further when playing senior football he had received several injuries. Gill attended in person and after making out a good case, his appli- I cation was granted. , |