SOCCER DISPUTE

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 160, 27 September 1927, Page 12

SOCCER DISPUTE

THE ENGLISH TROPHY RULES NOT OBSERVED Press Association. WELLINGTON, Monday. The curious position which has arisen in the competition among the four major associations for the English Football Association trophy has led to an appeal to the New Zealand Council for a decision as to how the event is to be decided. Auckland and Canterbury have each won two games and drawn one. v The goals for Auckland were 6 for''and 3 against; Canterbury 8 for and 5 against, this being a fraction in favour of Auckland. The Canterbury Association urged that the goal averages would equal the differance, being three in each case. However, if the question rested only on goal averages the question would not be in doubt and Auckland would get the trophy. The rules provide that in the event of a draw at the end of 90 minutes’ play ten minutes extra each way shall be played, but this was not observed when Auckland and Canterbury met at Christchurch. Canterbury has declared its willingness to replay the game, or to agree to holding the trophy for half the year with Auckland. This was the position as presented to a special meeting of the New Zealand Council this evening at which Mr. A. Varney presided. The council concluded that both associations were to blame in not abiding by the yule to play extra time, and it was decided to send a telegram to the Auckland Association asking it to show any reason why the match should not be replayed at Christchurch on October 8, owing to the extra time not being playerl, that the evidence showed that both sides were equally to blame arid in consequence all expenses should be borne by the two associations concerned.

A BELATED PROTEST

IS AUCKLAND TO BLAME? Canterbury lias been very dilatory, in raisins the protest a month atter the match. The dispute about goal average” appears as trivial. The New Zealand F.A. is affiliated to the English FA. which defines “goal average as the goals “for'’ divided by goals “agaiimt,” and the process was xplaind in THE SUN som time back. The argument that the difference betv» een goals “for” and goals “against is the “goal average” can hardly hold water. So far as the appeal for non-playing of extra time is concerned, this would seem to be a matter for the referee appointed by the New Zealand Council, who should have been made familiar with the conditions controlling the match. Otherwise the Canterbury F.A., as the body in charge of the game, must be held to blame in not seeing that the trophy conditions were observed. Auckland, as the visiting team, should be the last to blame, seeing it had nothing to do with the appointment of the referee or the control of the match, and it is grossly unfair to put it to the heavy expense of journeying to Christchurch for a replay. As one of the principal offenders in the non-observance of the rules, Canterbury should be asked to replay in Auckland if such a course is deemed necessary. “PERSEUS.”