The Referee Had Reason To Be Angry

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 98, 16 July 1927, Page 11

The Referee Had Reason To Be Angry

Extraordinary Action of Rugby Unions in Brownlie-Donald Case REFEREE IS CENSURED AND PLAYERS WHITEWASHED (By J. M. Mackenzie, Sports Editor .) A most unusual position has arisen in connection with the ordering off of M. Brownlie and Q. Donald in the Ranfurly Shield match between Hawke’s Bay and Wairarapa on Saturday. Last night the Hawke’s Bay Rugby Union carried a resolution completely exonerating Brownlie, and expressing the opinion that the action of the referee toward both players was unwarranted. The previous night the Wairarapa Rugby Union had the referee, Mr. H. J. McKenzie, and one of the players, Q. Donald, before it. The subsequent proceedings are summarised as follows: “After hearing the referee and Donald in committee, and after a full review of the circumstances, the committee unanimously decided to dismiss the charge of misconduct against Donald.” The word “charge” is presumably part of the text of the motion. Actually, there* can be no charge against a player in such circumstances. The referee does not “charge” a player—he simply reports—and on a question of fact the referee is the sole judge. It is then the duty of the Rugby Union to receive the referee’s report and decide on the punishment that is to be inflicted. In the present case, however, we have the extraordinary position of the Wairarapa Rugby Union sitting in judgment on the referee, and passing what practically amounts to a vote of no-confidence in its own official. The Hawke’s Bay Rugby Union has gone even further, and definitely censured the man who was in charge of the game. It is said that “the referee was angry at the verdict” of the management committee of the Wairarapa Union. He had good reason to be angry. Under the laws of the game, when a player is ordered off and reported to the controlling body for an offence committed during the game on a question of fact, the Rugby Union is going quite beyond its powers in reopening the case. A PRINCIPLE AT STAKE This is a fundamental principle of the game. At times it may have been found to operate harshly in very iso-

lated cases where an incompetent referee is in charge, but it is the only practical method that has been so far devised. A management committee takes a very serious responsibility on Its shoulders when it decides to go beyond the referee ana accept another version of what occurred, especially where the referee is a man of proved standing, as in the present instance. If persisted in, such an attitude must have the effect of undermining the authority of referees on the field, and that means that it is going to drive men out of the ranks of the referees, who will rightly contend that it places them in an intolerable position. AN EXPLANATION REQUIRED In the case under review the two players concerned, as well as being New Zealand representatives, are both men of some standing in the community, and theer was a suggestion in the South that unless they were exonerated it. might mean their retirement from the game. Just what effect —if any—this suggestion had in the decision of the Wairarapa and Hawke’s Bay Rugby Unions, it is impossible to say, but in the absence of any explanation for their refusal to uphold the referee, these two unions have laid themselves open to the suggestion that they were influenced in their decision by considerations other than those bearing directly on the case. When a body of men controlling Rugby football decides to over-ride the laws of the game, as appears to have been done in the present instance, it is entitled to make public the reasons for its decision, if only in fairness to referees as a whole, whose status is gravely affected by its decision. In conclusion, it would be interesting to know what view the New Zealand Rugby Referees’ Association takes of the action of Wairarapa and Hawke’s Bay Unions.