SOCCER TROPHY

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 162, 29 September 1927, Page 11

SOCCER TROPHY

NO CANTERBURY PROTEST CLAIMS EQUALITY ON POINTS AND GOALS (Special to THE SUN.) CHRISTCHURCH, Wednesday. Approached to-day, Mr. R. B. Bunt, secretary of the Canterbury Football Association, said that he could not answer for the referee in the Auckland Canterbury game, but as far as he, personally, was concerned, his attention was never drawn to the necessity for playing extra time should the Auckland-Canterbury English trophy match end in a draw. Mr. Bunt states he had evidence that in the presence of Mr. Neesham, manager of the Auckland Association, he made a statement that if at the conclusion of 90 minutes’ play the match were a draw, points would have to be divided. Mr. Neesham concurred in that view. “I don’t know about the referee, but I certainly was not notified by any official of the Auckland Association or the New Zealand Association,” Mr. Bunt went on. “In any case, Canterbury is not making a protest; we are simply claiming that, as we compute it, Canterbury and Auckland are equal on points and on goal average. On its (Auckland) method of computation it would be necessary for Canterbury to have scored 11 goals for with five against to beat Auckland with six for and three against, and 10 for and five against to equal Auckland. It doesn't seem fair, does it? In any case, we have heard nothing definite from the New Zealand Council as yet.” Seen this morning, Mr. A. P. Neesham, manager of the Auckland team, stated that Mr. Bunt is perfectly correct in his statement of the facts. There was a general discussion about conditions ruling the match before . Play started, and both • sides were satisfied that if it resulted in a draw, the points would be divided. The view taken was that the competition was not a knockout, but an interprovincial series, to be. determined, firstly, by points scored, and, secondly, in the event of points being equal the goal average would decide, the winning province. Neither the referee appointed by the New Zealand Council, the Canterbury F.A. which controlled the arrangements, nor Messrs. Neesham and Gribble, who represented the Auckland F.A., knew of any condition laid down by the New Zealand F.A. that in the event of a draw extra time must be played and the point has only now been raised by the New Zealand Council.