THAT SOCCER “BLAST”

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1039, 1 August 1930, Page 7

THAT SOCCER “BLAST”

AUCKLAND’S REPLY TO

N.Z. COUNCIL

“HARMFUL PUBLICITY”

At Tuesday's weekly meeting strong exception was taken by the Soeeer Control Board of Auckland to remarks published in a Press Association message, as made at a meeting of the New Zealand Council in Wellington last week, which strongly criticised the manner in which the Auckland authority disciplined Soccer players reported by referees. It jvas decided that the Auckland Control Board should take no action till some official communication was received from Wellington. This letter arrived on Wednesday, and the following reply was dispatched yesterday by Mr. S. R. Massam, honorary secretary, Auckland Football Association: “I am in receipt of your letter of July 26 advising confirmation of the decisions of my association re players ordered off the field this season. Following the newspaper report of your meeting held on July 22, my association has looked upon your decision as a censure upon its treatment of the cases, in that you consider the punishment inflicted on Spencer and McElligott to be absolutely inadequate, to quote the newspaper account. “Something of a surprise has been caused in Auckland at the report which has appeared in the newspapers, and the result has done considerable harm to my association’s standing. The criticism of the stand taken by my association has been given full publicity and has been freely discussed in Auckland, and as I have said, the result has not been complimentary to the local authority. “Even if the punishments were inadequate, which my association does not admit for reasons which will be given, my association considers that the harmful publicity given should not have been allowed. A full report appeared in all three Auckland papers, and as the information is marked Press Association” ‘no doubt a similar report has appeared in papers throughout New Zealand. The statement has naturally Drought a protest from the judicial committee of my association, a protest which has the endorsement of the association, and I have been instructed to advise you that my board feels that “ y° ur association considers the punishment inadequate my association “ouM have been notified of that fact D-nd the cases referred back for further consideration and a possible increase of penalty. “This my association contends would nave been more discreet than for the censure to be made available to the Association for broadcasting throughout the country. As I have •akd, much unnecessary harm has been done to my association’s standing as a result.” “OFFENCE NOT SERIOUS” the actual punishment injncted, neither the judicial committee nor the Control Board can see how ’'Punishment Yould be inflicted on gfglligott, who was guilty of no ofienc© whatever. From the referee’s own evidence it turned out that the f£ er had not been ordered off the neid at all; the referee telling him to ffet back to his place,” waving his n*hd toward the pavilion at the same r® e * McElligott thought he had Deen ordered to "get off the ground" *nd left the field without protest. He jns guilty of no offence and it is ,"Y ioUB that no punishment can be QBicted on a player found not guilty any offence, not reported by the jcieree or by any other member of 7® association. My association confers that its decision was the only Possible one under the circumstances. As regards Spencer, this case, as in *«ct the whole occurrence, turned out ? was not nearly as serious as at appeared. Spencer and the *®feree are friends of many years’ Bjyog. and when his appeal for a JJpasion was disallowed, Spencer, in Ow of his friendship, spoke to the jßieree more familiarly than a player jgnt be justified in doing, but the «S£r ee ob J to his attitude and ur «ered him off the field. , There was no suggestion of any or ba< * language, and at any time the remarKS would probU w ve been allowed to pass, e* *- 6r circumstances my assotottion considered the judicial comto'ttee’s recommendation of a quite sufficient to meet case. j. My association cannot help feeling jj*Dt these facts were not taken into fWJtoideration when your decision was sP*ved at, and in fairness to the delation an explanation of the reajl£or the decisions is to be handed tho® Pres » for publication in view of oni reinar k‘ s already published. It is *2L fair to bave my association’s ex*naU°n made known to the public Association respectfully aug‘that it be advised of the posiin Similar cases in the future. JUS be allowed to justify its actions I>ir » G . SUc h actions are made the subliA, 0 * adverse comment by members „: he council in the Press. am sure that upon further conelnn Uon of these facts your asso«2s° n will appreciate my associaPosition and feelings on reading *towspaper report- I trust that this will be the means of throwing J2J* li sht on the matter from the “"‘’vciation’s point of view.”