MANAKAU PLAYER PUNISHED.

Shannon News, 2 June 1925, Page 4

MANAKAU PLAYER PUNISHED.

There were a batch of witnesses before the Management Committee of the Horowhenua Rugby Union, on Tuesday night, and some very contradictory evidence, when the case of a Hui Mai player, A. Bevan,. who was reported to the Union for unsatisfactory conduct in the junior game against Baiaparaumu on May 16th, was considered. Mr. Lynch, who refereed the match in question, stated that Bevan had called him a dirty waster and had done everything possible to put the crowd against him. The crowd had been so threatening that he thought it advisable to let the player stay on, especially as the Paraparaumu captain had asked that he might do so. In answer to Mr. Austin, Mr. Lynch stated that Bevan had in the first instance questioned a scrum which hacl been ordered. Later a Paraparaumu player had fallen on the ball, with two others piled jip on him. The player in question was lying on his back with the others lying across his legs so that he could not possible rise. Bevan had deliberately rushed up, grabbed the player by the scuff of the neck and said "I’ll teach you to lie on the ball.” He (tire speaker) contended that the plaver had no chance of rising off the ball, and further that Bevan’s attitude was not an honest one of getting a player off the ball. He had blown his whistle to order a serum before Bevan’s action. Immediately Bevan had pulled this man off, he had ordered him off the field. Bevan had refused to go, and began to throw-off, stating that he had no standing as referee. The crowd began to get nasty then, and on the application of the Paraparaumu captain, who saw that they were getting out of hand, he had allowed Bevan to stay on. It was possible that Bevan had not ‘heard the whistle, but it was not football to attack the player on the ground as had been done. Bevan’s conduct throughout the game had been unsatisfactory, and he had questioned every decision that had been given. Mr. Carmichael said that the Union’s position was weakened considerably by the fact that Bevan had been allowed to stay on after being ordered off. Mr. Lynch said that the position he had taken up was that he remembered that when in the All Black-England match the referee had ordered Brownlie off, it was said that, had the English captain appealed for Brownlie, he would have been allowed to remain on the field.

Mr. Clay, captain of the Paraparaumu Club, gave supporting evidence. Bevan had been ordered off the field

for scragging a player, and as he (the speaker) had thought that there would have heen a row, he had asked that he might remain. He thought that Be van should have heard the referee blow the whistle. He-had himself beeu only a few yards away and had heard it distinctly. It was his opinion that Bevau was definitely scragging the man on the ground. The reason why the change of referees had been made was that the referee in the first half was the coach of the Paraparaumu club, who had at first objected to take the match for that reason, and who was too slow to keep up with the game. When Mr. Lynch had arrived therefore, he had been asked to referee, the consent of the Hui Mai captain having been obtained.

Mr. Hodgson (the Paraparaumu coach) who had refere’ed the game in the first spell, explained how he had come to take the game. When Mr. Lynch, -who was a Union referee, had arrived, he had got both captains to agree to the change-over. He was quite of opinion that Mr. Lynch was in order, in ordering Bevan off the field, as the incident was a “scrag' ’ without question. The Hui Mai captain had in the first instance objected to Mr. Lynch taking the whistle, ask-ng that he (the speaker) should carry on, but had afterwards agreed to the change. Even if Bevan had not heard the whistle his action was rot football. Bevan had given trouble during the first sp’ell, when he had questioned every decision he had given and was a general nuisance. A. Bevan, giving evidence, stated that Mr. Lynch had be’en on the field before the beginning of the game and bad refused to take the mateh. Mr. Hodgson had therefore taken it. It was not a fact that Mt. Lynch had arj'.ved late. Regarding the incident for which lie had been ordered off, he stated that the player had been collared by him and had deliberately held on to the ball, which he held clasped in his arms. He had therefore grabbed him by the arm of the jersey and had pulled him off. It was not a fact that there were other players lying across this man. He had pulled the man off the ball before the other Hui Mai players had got up to where they were. In answer to Mr. Austin, the witness stated that Mr. Lynch was actually on the ground before the match, and was sitting in his car, when he was approached by Hui Mai supporters to take the match. His reason for not going off when ordered to do so, was because he thought Mr. Lynch was not a properly appointed referee, and as 1 some Hui Mai supporters had called out to him to stay, he had done so. It was not a fact that he had called Mr. Lynch a dirty waster, nor that he had questioned the referee's decisions. Mr. IST. R. Bevan (captain of the Hui Mai team) stated that the player had been lying on the ball and had been ‘pulled off, before the whistle was on the ball. The man was lying on hi s face with the ball beneath him. The remainder of the Hui Mai team were ten to fifteen yards behind the two men who had wrestled for the ball when the incident occurred, and Bevan had pulled the man off the ball before the other men arrived. If the referee had been satisfied that his cousin was at fault he should have awarded the game to Paraparaumu when he refused to leave. He could produce two witnesses to prove that Mr. Lynch was on the ground before the gam'e started and had been approached to take ihe whistle. One of these was Mr. Diraock, who had been last year a member of the Management Committee of the Union. He had not heard his cousin call the referee any names, but had done so himself. His own opinion was

that Mr. Lynch’s decisions had not been fair. He had not himself approached Mr. Lynch as to taking the game, but had heard that this had been done. . Mr. Miles (coach of the Hui Mai team) corroborated the previous evidence as to Mr. Lynch having been on the field and being approached to take the whistle; and also as to only one man having been lying on the ball at the time Bevan pulled him off. He characterised Mr. Lynch’s decisions as remarkable Tight through. If the Hui Mai team had started to question his decisions it was not to be wondered at. He (witness) was playing in the game and was within almost five yards from Bevan when he pulled the player off the ball. The whistle had rot gone until after this had happened. In answer to Mr. Austin, witness stated that he had himself heard Mr. Hodgson ask Mr. Lynch, who was on [ the line, to take the whistle, this being just before the game started. On the withdrawal of the witnesses, a long discussion took place on the evidence. Mr. Carmichael stated that he did not see that any action could be taken as no Teport had been put in to, the Union in the regular way and the man had not even been stood on the line. The evidence was so conflicting also regarding the incident for which Bevan had been ordered off, that it was open to question if the decision had been a right one. Mr. Lynch, recalled, stated that it was absolutely incorrect that he was on the ground before the match began. The game was in progress for ten minutes when he arrived. Paraparaumu had scored their first try before Mr. Hodgson asked him to take the whistle. He was at Mr. At- ( kin’s store when the match b’egan. He was absolutely certain that it was A. Bevan who had called him names, and not his cousin, the captain of the Hui Mai team.

Mr. Rimmer, in summing up, said that as Bevan had been allowed to play again, he could not be penalised for this offence. Mr. Sloan, representing the Referees’ Association, said that if the referees wore not supported it would be impossible to get a man to take a game at Manakau. / Mr. Robinson moved that Bevan be stood down for two playing Saturdays for disputing the referee’s decision. The evidence was too conflicting to make the penalty a severe one, but there appeared to be no doubt that he had given trouble. This motion was carried.