"HOT AIR!"

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 58, 31 May 1927, Page 7

"HOT AIR!"

A SOCCER PROBLEM MR. JACOBS’S OBSCURITIES r PH E Woolley-Christie affair, which has been ruffling Soccer circles, is ventilated further in the following article in which •‘Perseus” deals with Mr. F. C. Jacobs's interview with Mr. F. C. issue of THE SUN. JN trying to clear the air of “obscurities,” Mr. F. C. Jacobs fails to show readers “the proper appreciation and administration of the constitutional laws and authority of the governing body ” —whatever all that means. He speaks as a past-chair-man of the A.F.U., so does the writer, who, too, has no interest in the clubs concerned beyond a barren (and unfinancial) vice-presidency. What actually happened in the Christie-Woolley affair was plainer to the capable referee and his equally capable linesman, who were both close by, than to the writer or Mr. Jacobs (if he saw it), and all Mr. Jacobs’s elaborate psycho-analysis of the players’ impulses is futile in face of the fact that the referee took prompt action against one and said nothing to the other. One felt very sorry for the one punished as, intentionally or not, he was certainly aggravated, and the added penalty was equally regrettable. THAT LITTLE “READ” BOOK But all that is apart from the new aspect which arose when the management resolved to have before them a player who had not been reported by either the referee or linesmen who officiated. Has the management this power? When Mr. Jacobs quotes ••Rule" 13 he probably means “Law” 13 in “the little Red book,” which governs Soccer all over the world. Law

13 defines the “duties and powers referee,” and in an “official decision” arising out of this law it is laid down: “Any misconduct toward 9- referee away from the field of play will be dealt with in the same way as if the offence had been committed on the field. “It is the duty of members of the council, officials of clubs, and referees to report to the council all cases of misconduct likely to bring the game into disrepute . . A common-sense reading of that “decision” can only construe it to apply to misconduct away from the field of play. At the game in question there •were two leading members of the N.Z.F.A. Council present, and also many “officials of clubs”; have they reported the player in question? Is it not that, members of the management are reporting to themselves on something which was solely in the discretion of the referee? As a senior referee. Mr. Jacobs may like to know that such an offence as “misconduct” is not mentioned in the laws of the game, and official “instructions to referees” lay it down “as regards rough plav the referee has abso!ute discretion.” If words have any meaning that excludes any interference from members of councils, officials of clubs, etc., etc., with the functions of the referee whose duty it is to report, it then becomes the management’s function to deal with his report and the person reported. Such intervention as that of the management can only be regarded as an unwarranted reflection on a competent official and a usurping of the referee’s duty. The management was offside in proceeding as it did yvhen it had no player in front of it. The offender reported had been dealt with and there the matter might have ended. Anyhow the Referees' Association should get an official decision on the question raised, as it is a matter of vital importance in interpreting the laws. Mr. Jacobs’s vague remarks lead nowhere.