SOCCER SIDELIGHTS PASSING NOTES

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 420, 31 July 1928, Page 11

SOCCER SIDELIGHTS PASSING NOTES

(By

Perseus

F.A. Trophy Trouble.—Without attempting to decide the winner of last season’s provincial contests for possession of the English F.A. Trophy, .the New Zealand Council has apparently made up its mind that Auckland will have no chance of winning it this season, unless the A.F.A. is prepared to finance a costly trip South, or guarantee tlie full expenses of a Southern team journeying here. The Council’s letter, published in Friday’s Sun, states that owing to poverty the New Zealand Football Association is unable to assist any province, and the only means of staging and interprovincial game this season was to arrange for Canterbury to meet Wellington in Wellington. Last season Wellington was defeated by all the other provinces, and must be thought very lucky to secure the first, and probably the only game for the trophy this season, and meeting Canterbury on Wellington territory. Mr. Menzies was in Wellington last week-end and may have some fresh proposal for tonight’s meeting of the A.F.A., but as the position stands Auckland will have no say in the contest fliis year.

Points and Goal Averages.—lt was clearly understood last season that in the event of a tie on points, the holder of the trophy would be determined by goal average. Auckland finished level with Canterbury on points, but Auckland scored six goals to three, while Canterbury only scored eight goals to five. Canterbury claimed that the margin of goals, three, was the same in both instances, and appealed to the N.Z. Council to decide the point—and the winner of the trophy. The council apparently knew nothing of the simple rule for calculating averages, and referred the decision to the Football Association in London for a ruling, which is still awaited. In spite of the confusion in some quarters, and some wrong impressions given of the British rule, the method is very clear and simple, has been in force in Britain ever since “goal averages” have been deciding factors. The goals “for” are divided by the goals “against,” and the team with the highest average wins. Auckland’s average would be six divided by three, two goals, and Canterbury would be eight divided by five, 1.6 goals. A famous case was quoted in detail in this column last season, when this matter cropped up, where Portsmouth secured promotion from second to first division of the English League by .005, or one twohundredth, of a goal better average than Manchester City!

Chatham Cup Ties.—The next provincial round of the Chatham Cup knockouts will be staged at Hikurangi on Saturday, when Y.M.C.A. journeys to the Far Ndrth to meet Waro Wanderers, the North Auckland finalists. The miners did not bother Ponsonby seriously when they met on Blandford Park last season, but may prove a much troughe.r proposition on their home paddock. The Young Men are unfortunate in having Jim Clana.chan on the sick list, but Martin Dick should add some much-needed strength to the half line. The Y.M. selectors seem to think less of Dick than the majority of critics do, but he caught Mr. Neesham’s eye for selection in Auckland’s first fifteen, and that opinion would satisfy most people. W. Mowat will fill the vacancy at fullback, and he journeyed to the final in Wellington last year as emergency for the Shore team. With Clanachan absent the last line of defence .may be Y.M.’s weak spot. Auckland’s Hope.—The Y.M.C.A. lads are Auckland’s hope fo.r retaining the

national club trophy this year, and they carry North with them the cheerful good wishes of the other clubs and all followers of the game here. The team has put up some sterling performances this season; but, it must be admitted, has faded at times like a prize fight radio reception. The forwards in form are easily the equal of any club line in the Dominion, but failed to score on Saturday after surrounding the Ponies’ goal for about 30 minutes. Dwelling on the ball too long was a fatal blunder, “shoot or pass” should be the cup tie motto for forwards when the penalty area is reached. It is better to miss the target than be robbed of a shot. A failing of the Y.M. defence on Saturday was the players dropping back into the goal-mouth, and it presented Ponsonby with two out of four goals. One when a back headed in, and another when a half ran in and tapped it weakly to an onrushing opponent. Keep clear of the goalie at close quarters, should be the defenders’ motto, and give him a clear sight of the ball. Boot for the line when defending, and aim for the centre forward when attacking is sound advice for the backs. So, also, is it essential for the fullbacks to understand each other. With an attack approaching from one wing' the opposing back should move forward a little to support the half, and the opposite drop back a bit on guard for a long cross. Never should the backs be playing on a level with each other crosswise, leaving a fatal “hole” between them.

With a study of knock-out tactics, Y.M.C.A. has every chance of victory in the North, and good luck go with them. The winners will meet Pukemiro at Blandford Park on the following Saturday to determine the Auckland finalist, but the Wellington district champion is not yet certain. Hastings United was ordered to Wellington to meet Petone last Saturday, after a heated objection from Hawke’s Bay to the change of venue; but the “Pets” were busy playing the Argentina warship, so Hastings may have carried out its threat to default if the original arrangements were not adhered to.

Out of Play.—A correspondent inquires whether it is permissible, when a team “lines the goal” for a free kick for “carrying,” for the defaulters to stand just out of play behind the goal line. There is no rule against such action; in fact, it is the safest policy to stand back a bit from the line, and if the kicker aims direct let the ball go. It cannot be a goal until it strikes another player, and where the defenders are behind the line the ball must pass over it to hit them. In a penalty kick the goal-keeper must not advance beyond his goal line, and in the throw-in the thrower rry.ist have both feet outside the touch line, so he is usually off the field of play but still playing. “Obstruction” also worries the correspondent, but no such offence as “obstruction,” intentional or otherwise, can be discovered by the writer in any laws made or decisions given up to June this year, when the International Board last met. If a player “obstructs” an opponent with his hand or arm the offence is “holding”; if he “obstructs” an opponent’s sight of the ball when offside, then the offence is “offside” and not “obstruction,” as a player who is in an offside must not affect the play in any way, active or passive, otherwise he is penalised. Wilfully obstructing an opponent from getting to the ball, or to another player, is quite a legitimate practice, and no referee is eptitled to penalise it until he can point out a law or decision forbidding it.