SOCCER SIDELIGHTS

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 704, 2 July 1929, Page 14

SOCCER SIDELIGHTS

PASSING NOTES

(By

Perseus)

On Mr. Neesham’s Selection. —The Auckland sole selector is promptly on the scene with his choice of a team to battle for Auckland against Wellington in the chjillensre match for the F.A Trophy, to be played at Bland - ford Park on July 20. The eleven elect contains no surprises, the selector relying on the combination which won in such brilliant style against the strong Navy team on King’s Birthday. It should give a good account of itself in maintaining Auckland’s unbeaten record in F.A. Trophy matches. None of the players is new to rep. honours, but there are several changes from the side which performed so well against Wellington

last winter. Batty still sticks t<» ms posts as goalie, and is as nimble as ever in fielding and clearing from all angles. Alan Reid comes back a> his old possie at fullback in place of Simpson, where, with Peter Gerrard as a partner. Auckland will have a safe and solid last line of de-

fence The halfback line is the same as did duty last year, and Tinkler. Christie and Jones could not be improved on for safety in both defence and attack. Tn the forward lin« Kay and Hislop replace Chalmers and Davis as left wing, and Dunsmore succeeds Humphreys as partner for Innes, with ii*replaceable Spencer as the connectinglink in the centre. Except that Tommy Chalmers had strong claims for an inside berth, the line is Auckland’s best procurable and will give the Wellington defenders a lively time holding it back. Dearth of New Blood.—lt is not very gratifying to find the same old players donning the blue and white livery season after season, but it has to be admitted that there has been a marked scarcity of promising colts in recent years, and none worthy of catching the selector’s eye is yet in sight. Hilliard has tne makings of a top-notch goalie, and Wylie is promising in his unorthodox style: but most of our fullbacks are full-blown and long past the promise of youth. The obvious weakness in this department has been more responsible for the wonderful crop of goals this season than deadly shooting or clever team w r ork. There is a similar paucity of finished halfbacks; Jock Morrison and Georgs Wright are playing sound club games, but lack the tactical knowledge and execution of the three veterans selected. There is the same gloomy outlook in the firing line, where several promising colts have failed to improve or fallen away in attacking power. A Soccer player should be mature when he comes of age, and ready with a bit of seasoning to contend for a place in the reps., but either lack of keenness, slackness in training, or want of coaching prevents our colts improving beyond a certain stage, and a

sound selector can only play for safety by sticking to proved players and taking no risks. Keeping the Game Clean.—The Soccer code has always been very strictly controlled by its laws against ungentlemanly behaviour, dangerous play and violent conduct, and players are trained to rely more on skill and brains than brawn or brute force to shine at the game. The game is so open in its play that foul or shady tactics are easily discerned, and argument, nagging or “language” is severely frowned on by the authorities. Even when a referee cautions a player for some specific offence the law lays down that such caution must be reported to those in authority, and the player's club notified of the fact by the authorities. A referee who fails to report lays himself open to reprimand for neglect of duty. At one time much of the management committee’s valuable time was spent in dealing with referees’ reports on players, hearing evidence, and considering cases; but last year it was wisely decided to appoint a judicial committee to deal with all matters of discipline, and recommend what action should be taken. These three members are appointed by the delegates, the executive and the referees, respectively, and are not connected with any club or affiliated body. So far the task of the judicial committee has been a fairly light one, and it has given the greatest satisfaction to everyone but a few offenders, and when it was suggested in framing the new constitution that its appointment b© made only optional the idea was unanimously rejected by the delegates in favour of a compulsoiy judicial authority. Changing the System. Messrs. Grant, Takle and Booklass. the present judicial committee, are old and experienced players and officials with a thorough knowledge of the laws of the game and unchallenged impartiality, but the Board of Control appears intent on limiting the powers of the committee in a manner never contemplated on its appointment. In a recent case two players were reported by a referee as having been cautioned. As is usual in such cases, the players did not appear and the committee followed its usual practice of noting the referee’s caution in “the book of words,” and advising the Control Board that the club be notified. That notification is a formality required by the laws of the game as it gives the club an opportunity of rebuking the offender, or of the player appealing against the report if his club considers it unmerited. In this case the club took strong exception to the referee’s report and demanded that the record of the cautions be purged from the roster of the judicial committee, and the Control Board supported the request for expunging, without hearing any formal appeal, and also decided that future reports on players should be referred in the first instance to the divisional committee of club delegates! A Retrograde Step. —The executive would appear to be going beyond its powers in changing a. rule which says

! the judicial committee shall investigate all reports, and in any case it is a I dangerous and dubious move to allow | the committee of club delegates to I touch such a delicate matter of discipi line, and might easily start a donny- | brook if the club delegates on the divisional committees start arguing about the sins of players. Far better to leave such matters, as intended by the rules, in the calm, impartial and judicial atmosphere of the advisory committee, and let the Control Board accept, amend or reject its reeommen- | dations. ! The new constitution of the executive itself leaves it no longer free of direct club influence, as the action taken in these cases shows, and if either the clubs, referees or Control Board have no longer confidence in the capacity of the judiciary member appointed by them, an indication to that effect would no doubt bring about a prompt vacancy, as the job is a very thankless one and not mucli sought after. Leave Well Alone.—The Control Board should realise that it only appoints one member to the judicial committee, and there should be no attempt to lessen the authority of that committee, or interfere with its procedure, without the approval of both the club representatives and the Referees’ Association who are responsible for the appointment of the other two members. As noted here recently the numerous sub-divisions of the A.F.A. are functioning admirably in their various spheres, and everything is running smoothly this season. The Board of Control can find plenty to do in exercising its executive functions and carrying on its good work of general supervision, without barging into the good work of subsidiary committees and taking the risk of disturbing the wonderful harmony of this year of grace. A Belated Judgment.—Just when everyone must have completely forgotten about it, the New Zealand Council announces that it has received a decision from the F.A., London, on the protest made by Canterbury about possession of the F.A. Trophy in 1927. Readers may recall that in the interprovincial games, Auckland and Canterbury finished level with two wins and a draw each, but as the matches were not knock-outs, but played on the Teague” system, Auckland claimed the plate on goal average, having scored six goals to three, while Canterbury scored eight goals to five. By some reckoning Canterbury alleged that the margin between goals for and against was three in each case, and claimed a tie for an equal average. The New Zealand Council sent the problem to the F.A., London, for an expert opinion, and now announces that Mr. F. J. Wall says Auckland won by an average of 66.6 per cent, to Canterbury’s 62.5 per cent. As Mr. Wall points out, he is only giving a second-hand opinion from Association League practice, and he evidently assumes that the League determines goal average as the percentage of goals “for” to the total of goals scored, but unless the League method was altered last season. Mr. Wall’s judgment would appear erroneous if applied to 1927, as in that season goal average was ascertained by dividing goals “for” by goals “against,” the club securing the highest average being superior. Auckland’s goal average was 2 against Canterbury’s 1.6. If percentage “for” to “total” is the deciding factor, as Mr. Wall thinks, how could Pompey beat Manchester City for promotion to Division I. of the League by .005 or one-two-hundredth of a goal if percentage of total determined it?