RUGBY CONTROL.

Shannon News, 23 July 1926, Page 3

RUGBY CONTROL.

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING. Tile usual weekly meeting of the Management Committee of the Horowhenua District Rugby Council was held on Tuesday, Mr J. J. o’Connor occupying the chair. Also 'present—j Messrs J. Rimmer, B. Brann, H. G. McDonald, W. Neville, S. Austin, M. Winiata, W. Hannan, N. Emmett, F. Robinson, H. Lynch and J. Casey. PLAYER) SUSPENDED. ■Mr A. George, who refereed the County—Foxton senior match on Saturday, reported liavling stood R. Andrews (Foxton) on the line for bad language. The referee alleged that to all intents the player was under the influence of liquor at the time of the incident-. • Andrews also appeared, but he denied the charge. He stated further that at half-time he' asked tire referee why he had been ordered off. He had nothing to drink before the match. Mr • Neville stated he was line-um-pire* in the match and did not hear any bad language. Mr Robinson asked whether the player thought a referee would order nirn off for nothing? Mr George said that, if necessary, he could produce the County player who had been the object of the language alleged to have been used. Mr Casey moved that this player should be severely cautioned for the offence. Mr Emmett seconded the motion. The chairman observed that if players using bad language were just cautioned it would show a very weak policy on the part of the Management Committee. Mr Austin moved that the player shall stand down for one playing Saturday. Mr Robinson seconded the motion. Mr Neville remarked that other bad language had' been used and it was a pretty hard thing to penalise one man out of so many other instances. “Fair play was bonny play” he concluded. Mr Robinson said it was a bad thing to have a referee reporting a player for bad language and then to have the referee criticised in regard to his action. Mr Hannan considered that the referee should have included the -charge of drinking against the player when making his .written ireport to the 'Management Committee. Mr Rimmer said he would support neither the motion nor the amendment as the referee did- not appear to be quite clear as to the occurrence. Mr McDonald' observed that if the committee could not believe the referee in his complaint it was a very unfortunate position, as they might be certain that the referee would he fairly sure "of his ground when making the charge. , The chairman, in supporting the amendment, said that in giving power to the referees the committee were bound to support them, and accept the referee’s statement before that of the defaulting player, if there was any doubt in the matter. Mr Procter also affirmed what Mr O’Connor had said. It was unlikely that a referee would wrongly report a playdr. The amendment was carried and Andrews stands down for one playing Saturday. A REFEREE CENSURED. The committee considered the complaint that a referee, Mr W. Neville, had been guilty of unseemly behaviour in a match in which he was not engaged. Mr J. Sadd reported that while he was controlling a fourth grade match in Foxton and shortly before halftime Mr Neville came up to him and informed him he was no referee. The referee replied that if be did not desist he would be ordered off the ground, irrespective of whom or what lie might be. There were a few people within earshot at the time. Although the game was held up for-a minute only, a number of the players had heard ,the remarks passed. Mr Neville denied the allegation that he had done anything out of place. He sought to cross-examine Mr Sadd on certain technical points involved in decisions given during the game, but was ruled out of order. Mr Casey said that a referee had sole charge of the game and no man had the right to question the referee’s rulings.

Mr Emmett explained that if one referee saw that another was giving incorrect decisions, it was the duty of the onloking referee to confer at halftime with lxis colleague and help him with useful suggestions. If a referee ibroke those (regulations he was reported. Mr Neville had appeared before the Management Committee of the Referees Association, evidence was heard, and he was asked to' apologise. This he refused to do and his membership was therefore terminated.

Mr Rfimmer asked Mr Neville whether he accepted the principle of one referee being in sole control of the game, to which he replied in the affirmative.

Mr Sadd was questioned by Mr O’Connor whether he had any evidence to call to the effect of Mr Neville having said, “Good God, man, can’t you referee.” Mr Sadd said that, being in control of the' game, he didn’t consider it necessary to call evidence to that effect.

Mr Robson: Do you consider that remark was for yourself, or anybody that happened to be neajr—to make you look small? Mr Sadd considered it was meant for himself alone.

Mr Neville: He admits I didn’t make a scene! What I said was, “Can’t vou be fair with the boy?” I contend

\ '•'-“.MI jljr’ * W ' . Mr Sadd has not proved Ins charge of unseemly beliavio:ur. Messrs H. Hutchens and Kennedy proferred corrobortive evidence to that produced by Mr Neville. Mr Casey: I would like to ask Mr Hutchens whether he would like a spectator to question the referee in 1 front of the players? ' Mr Hutchens:-1 can’t say I would. . Mr O’Connor said he considered there was really no reason why any further evidence should be called, as j there was so little difference between I the words quoted. * j Mr Neville said that he didn’t bully \ or make a scene, but he just spoke .'quietly, after half-time. Messrs McCarthy, Neville and Kennedy stated it was before, while Messrs Sadd and Hutchens considered it was after, half time that the incident occurred. All those concerned then retired from the meeting. Mr Austin said that according to evidence proffered by Mr Hutchens he was.not satisfied with the refereeing and had called Mr Neville over to watch the game. The latter had taken the opportunity, when the ball came to the line, to speak to the referee. It seemed to him (Mr Austin) that the action of the Referees’ Association was much too' drastic. Mr Robinson concurred, although 1 admitting that Mr Neville had made an error. Mr Casey pointed out that the? Management Committee had nothing to do with the sentence imposed by the Referee’s Association, and they had Mr Neville’s admission that he had spok- < en the words. The speaker moved that Mr Neville be censured for interfering in the game. Mr McDonald seconded the motion which was caried after a good deal of further discussion. LOWER GRADE REPS. The Southern Rep. Thirds selected to play Northern Thirds are as follow: Southern team: Full-back, Peruette (K.); three-quarters, Merewood (O.), Webber (C.), and Wallace (C.)~; fiveeighths, Katene (C.),'and Potete (C.); half, Tukere (C.); • forwards,. Moore (K), Howard (K.), Poutana v (K.), Berry (S.U.), McDonald (C.), Howell (S.U.), Maclean (S.U.); wing-forward t Bowling (K.). Emergencies: Forwards, . ■Bramley (0.), and Drake (K.); backs, Hurren (S.U.), and Koro (K.). [STANDING IN OTAKI MATTER )bs 1 This match will be iplayed in Levin on July 31st. ! The following players have been [chosen to represent the 'Combined | Team of Foxton D.H.S. and Shanon Fourths versus Levin D.H.S. and Foxton Fourths on Saturday next, at Foxton:—M. Moffatt, G. Baird, S. Birchall, L. Moffatt, R. Ghrystal, N. Holden, C. Hunt, A. McEwan, T. Jude, H. Curran, R. Ball, R. Small, E. Ball, J. Jamieson and G. Stevens.

THE BEBBINGTON SHIELD. ITS RETURN TO HOROWHENUAL The shield donated by Mr J. Bebbington in 1921 has at long last come to Horowhenua. When the challenge table was drawn up there was much speculation as to its first restingplace, tout after the first two or three games the issue was not very much in doubt. Rangitikei and Horowhenua first clashed for it on the 24th May, 1922, the former winning 11—6. On the 10th June following this match the winers met Bush who defeated them by 8 points to 6. In July of 1923, Bush beat Horowhenua 6—3, and the former then followed this’ with ’a succession of wins right up to 1926. The matches, in their chronological - order are:— 'June 13th, 1923, Rush 14—Rangitikei 12; 26th July, 1924. Bush 9—Horowhenua 3; 17tli June, 1925, Bush O-Horo-whena 0; 24th June, 1925, Bush 3 Dannevirke 3; 30th June, 1926, Bush 13—Dannevirke 11; 14th July, 1926, Horowhenua 11—Bush 9. With the inclusion of Otroua SubUnion in the competition and improved combination and tactics on the part of our own rep. team, the fixtures in future should be extremely interesting. Now that- the Shield has come home, it is hoped it- is here to stay.