REFEREE SOLE JUDGE OF FACT

Shannon News, 1 June 1928, Page 2

REFEREE SOLE JUDGE OF FACT

PRINCIPLE UPHELD BY HOROWHENUA RUGBY COUNCIL.

SHANNON JUNIOR PLAYER SUSPENDED FOR THREE MATCHES.

The powers of a referee, and incidentally his abilities, were discussed at the weekly meeting of the Horowhenua Rugby District Council at Levin on Monday evening, when a letter was received from Mr W. Neville, of Foxton, reporting that, in the junior match Shannon v. Foxton, at Foxton on Saturday last, he ordered a Shannon player named Mason off the field for continually disputing his (the referee’s) rulings and remarking to his fellow players that they were playing 16 men. The writer added that he had given the lad a warning early in the CLUB PROTESTS. The Shannon club, through their secretary, Mr G. Mitchell, forwarded a letter protesting against the ruling of the referee in the junior match, Shannon v. Foxton. Tne protest, the letter stated, was against the rulings (1) in ordering-off Mason and (2) m not awarding a try to the Shannon team but a five-yards scrum .when, it was alleged a clear try was scored by a Shannon player —namely White. The Shannon club asked that the match be re-played at Foxton. A protest fee of 10s was enclosed. The Chairman, in referring to tiie Shannon protest, said lie thought that it was out of order, in that the referee was the sole judge of fact and the Council had to abide by his action m ordering, any player off. As to the second part of the letter, differing from the referee for not awarding a try, the same principle applied, and the club could not protest. - Mr A. Richards (Shannon): He is not allowed to go outside the laws of the game, under Law 10. He must make his decision according to those The Chairman: You cannot toll me under what rule he gave his decision. Mr Richards: We are prepared to bring witnesses. If he is not here to defend the case, we are. The Chairman: The referee awards the try on fact, not law. He can order a five yards scrum. My ruling is that the Shannon protest against his ordering Mason off the field is out of order.

REFEREE’S QUALIFICATION. Mr Richards: Is Mr Neville entitled to referee under the Horowhenua Referees’ Association? „ The Chairman: Yes, being a financial member. . In answer to questions, the chairman •stated that the defendant in this case was the same A. Mason who was cautioned at the meeting of May Bth, having been ordered off the field by Mr P. 11. McGregor for striking out at a Foxton player. THE PLAYER EXAMINED. Mason was then called in, and the chairman read to him the letter from Mr Neville reporting his conduct. lii reply Mason said that the refeiee had not cautioned him. He (Mason) was taking a kick at the goal, and certain spectators were “slinging off at him about a player who had charged at him a fortnight previously and broken his collar-bone. He (Mason) called out that the team had come to play 15 men, and not 16. He did not direct this remark to the referee, but to a spectator. His (Mason’s) father approached the referee after the game and said that the remark had been made on the spur of the moment and that he would write to the Union and have the case lightly dealt with. When ordered off the field, he (Mason) went straight up town. He did not remember Mr Neville cautioning any shannon players. The Chairman: You admit that you said, “We are not here to play 16 menU’ „ . Mason: Yes —to one of the speetators. ~ The chairman pointed out to the meeting that Mr Neville was not in attendance, and that .it would rest with the delegates whether the case should be gone on with. Mr H. Hutchins (Foxton) asked Mason if Mr Neville cautioned the team at all; and Mason replied that he did not remember the refeiee saving anything to either side. Mr F. Robinson (Hautere): Your father was there? Mason: Yes. He was disgusted with the game. He was not disgusted with your f ( magging ?’ ’—-No;!, I never said anything. Didn’t your father get on to you about talking too much on the field? No. When I was going off, he came after me and asked me what was the matter. He approached the referee and said he would write a letter to the Union and get it made light, I never disputed any of the rulings. Your father did not go off the ground with you?—He stayed and saw the finish and the senior match. The Chairman: When you nassed the remark to the spectator, did you mean that the Foxton fifteen was added to? Mason: When I was going off, we were playing the whole of the spectators as well. Mr Richards: Do you think the referee had any chance of hearing what you said? Mason: I don’t know. He was a fair distance away from me —20 yards or so. He came back and asked me what I had said, and I said “Nothing.” He then said, “I think you had better stand on the line. Mr M. Ryder (Wanderers): Do you think the referee was giving your team fair treatment? Mason: I don’t think he w T as. Mr G. Mitchell (Shannon): What were you doing at the time when the | spectators were “slinging-off ”! Mason: I was just going to kick the goal. We had scored a try. Some ladies sang out something, and I djd not know whether to kick or not. I missed it and came back. When the 1

referee ordered me off, the spectators told him to put a dozen off. The Chairman: Do you make a habit of taking notice of what spectators say on the line? Mason: No; but it is hard to swallow things they say. The Chairman: You were before the Council previously, and I think it was pointed out to you then that, if you came before the Council again, that charge would count against you. Mr Richards: The referee, in his statement, says he warned you once or twice. The Chairman: He says lie ordered Mason off for continually disputing his rulings; also that he gave Mason a warning early in the game. PRETTY POSITIVE.

Mr Richards: Are you positive that he did not warn you? Mason: Yes; positive. He did not speak to me before. I would put my hand on a stack of Bibles and swear to it. Mr W. S. Joyce (Weraroa): Did the referee issue a general warning to the players before starting the game? Mason: No; I never heard it. The defendant was then asked to retire.

Mr Richards stated that there was some further evidence to call. The Chairman: It is just a case of taking witnesses against a statement that a referee makes. We don’t, as a rule, allow them. We reckon that the referee is the sole judge of fact. This boy admits that he used the expression “sixteen men.” REFEREE NOT IN ATTENDANCE. Mr Richards: We sent a letter to the Foxton Club. , Mr Neville knew that we Avere protesting,sand it is his place to be here to-night. The Chairman: Not exactly, because it means‘ that he comes at the expense of the Council. If you move that we wait till Mr Neville appears, then this player is suspended till we deal with his case. Mr Robinson:. With every player that, we have had to deal with, we have taken the referee’s statement, and I don’t think we should make any difference to-night. Mr Richards: It means that any man can join the Referees’ Association and make any ruling he likes, and that we have to stand by it. The Chairman:' No; if they admit a man and the selector thinks he is a fit and proper person to referee, it is their business. " We have handed the appointment of referees to the Association, and we take their decision as final. , „ . *Mr H. McDonald (Schools): Being a referee, he has sole charge. The Chairman: Yes. Mr Robinson: He must report the player for misconduct, and it is left for us to deal with.

The chairman said he did not pro pose to allow any evidence on the mat ter of fact. If the committee thoughl otherwise, he would abide by their de cision; but he had given liis ruling.

SHANNON CLUB DISSATISFIED. Mr Richards said that on Friday last, at. a meeting of the Shannon Club, the appointment of Mr Neville was discussed. The club decided that it would send a telegram to the Referees Association on the Saturday. morning, asking them to change the appointment for that day’s match, if possible. A reply was received that the Association could not do this. Mr Richards added that in the last four years. Mr Neville had ordered off quite a number of Shannon and Miranui players. t ® The chairman stated that, if objection was to be taken to an appointment, the protesting club must have the consent of the other club on the Monday night preceding the match. Mr Richards: We did not have time to get the other club to agree. Mr W. Phillips (Referees’ Association): When did you know he was appointed? Mr Richards: About Wednesday.

Mr Phillips stated that the appointments were made on the Saturday morning, and then posted. Mr Richards also explained that there was some delay in getting the club members together for the, meeting. The chairman stated that Mr Neville had been refereeing for a good many years, and ,was recognised by the Association. The committee had better deal with Mason’s case. Mr Richards: Has Mr Neville been officially reinstated as a referee?

The Chairman: He was never disqualified. He is a member of the Referees’ Association and an ex-member of the Council, and I should not have allowed-you to discuss his ability at all. A PREVIOUS CAUTION.

Dealing with Mason’s case, the chairman said that following the previous complaint this lad had been let off fairly leniently. On the present occasion lie had admitted having used the expression for which he was reported. If there was an inference in the statement about “playing sixteen men,” as made to the spectators, then it was against the referee. Players had often been heard, from the line, to say, “We are playing sixteen men,” and the inference was generally, against the referee.

Mr J. W. Simmer (Treasurer): I think he has substantiated the charge that the referee has made against him, and in spite of a previous warning by the referee.

Mr Mitchell remarked that in the circumstances of this case, with spectators heckling a man who was going to make a kick at the goal, he would be likely to say something after missing the goal. The spectators were alluding to a man having broken his collar-bone in another match, but that was against a different player. It seemed that Mason had been up against hard luck.

SUSPENDED TO JUNE 25. The chairman moved, and Mr J. W. Procter (Hui Mai) seconded, that Mason be suspended for three playing Saturdays, which would debar him until June 25th. The mover said that this would act as a warning to other players. Addressing Mason, he said he hoped that that player would never appear

before any Rugby Council or Union again. Mason: Will that stop me from playing in the seven-a-side? The Chairman: Yes, from all Rugby. PROTEST WITHDRAWN. The Shannon /delegates intimated their willingness to withdraw their club’s protest, as it related to matters of fact coming under the referee’s jurisdiction. The chairman remarked that it was hardly fair for a club to put in a protest if it was going to withdraw it; but this case could be allowed to pass. Mr Mitchell said that after the protest had been ruled out of order, no further action could be taken. The Chairman: Then it rests with us whether we hand the money back. On the motion of Mr E. M. Ryder (Wanderers), seconded by the chairman, it was resolved that the Shannon club be allowed to withdraw its protest, and that the fee of 10s be refunded.