FOOTBALL.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 July 1922, Page 3

FOOTBALL.

SATURDAY’S MATCHES. REFEREES APPOINTED. Senior A. Tukapa v. Okaiawa, at Sports Ground. New Plymouth; Mr. F. Julian. Hawera v. Palea. <at Patea ; Mr. Neilson. Clifton v. Opunake, at Op.unake; Mr. Meuli. Kaponga v. Waimate, at Kaponga; Mr. Guy. Senior B. , Star v. Inglewood, at Inglewood : Mr. F. Webb. Old Boys v. Okato, at Western Park; Mr. L. Goodacre. Eltham v. Lepperton, at Lepperton; Mr. Kiley. Second Grade. Clifton v. Rahotu, ai Rahotu; s Mr. W. Hughs. High School v. Urenul, at Recreation Ground, at 1.15 : Mr. E. Andrews. Old Boys v. Tukapa, at Western Park, at 1.15; Mr. F. Hooker. Third Grade. Tec. v. Old Boys, at Racecourse No. 1, 1.15; Mr. A. McLean. Urenui v. Clifton, at Waitara, 3 p.m.; Mr. L. Andrews. High School v. Star, at Racecourse No. 3, 1.15; Mr. A. Page. Lepperton v. Okato. at Racecourse No. 1, 3 p.m.; Mr. A. Papps. Fourth Grade. High School C v. Tukapa, at Racecourse No. 4, 1.15; Mr. Gilmour. Star v. High School D, at Racecourse No. 2, 1.15; Mr. Connell. Referees are notified that they are not to referee any matches unless the goal posts are padded and grounds correctly Ragged by the clubs. TUKAPA v. PATEA. A PROTEST BY TUKAPA. The Tukapa team which played Patea on Saturday intend to protest against the latter club playing Tangipo, who, it is t claimed, is a member of the Opaku Club, for whom he has been playing all the season in the Wairoa Sub-Union’s competition. Opaku is within the Patea boundary, but the fact that Tangipo has been playing for another club under the jurisdiction of another union is held by Tukapa to make him Ineligible to play for Patea. Commenting on the New Zealand team’s display against Wairarapa, the Dominion says: The victory an extremely lucky one, the honors right through being decidedly with the local representatives. After the display given bj’ the New Zealand team, many question whether the selectors were wise in giving younger and fresher blood a chance. The team, to begin with, appeared to be without the connecting links which mark the line of demarcation between brilliant and mediocre play—a leader in the forward and a nippy half-back. Had Bellis and H. E. Nicholls been seen in action in their respective positions a different tale might have been told. No credit is due to the back division for the manner in which they handled the ball. Although the ground was slightly greasy the other side experienced no difficulty in handling the ball. The All Blacks were heavier In the pack, but were more than held, and frequently outclassed by their .lighter opponent’’. Although not what might be regarded as brilliant play, the display given by the Wairarapa rearguard was of a high order and far superior to that of the All Blacks. Their efforts generally in the direction of systematic combination have something to commend them. Dealing individually with the merits of the New Zealand men, it must be admitted that Bell (full-back) was a disappointment. More than once he engaged in speculating, and on one occasion gave away a try through allowing the ball to go through his legs. His fielding was poor.- His kicking lacked sting, in the three-quarter line Ford and Svenson carried out a good deal of work, and were often seen to advantage in solo movements. Steel, on his play in the first spell, seemed to be off color, but showed an improvement in the second half. The five-eighths line saw two good performers in Fitzgerald and M. Nicholls. The former would, however, have done better work had he passed more irfstead of using the short punt. M. Nicholls made the most of the few opportunities he had in attack, and was not found wanting where defensive work was concerned. At half-back Matheson played a poor game. His forwards admittedly did not assist him greatly, but his dispatches from the scrum were not the kind required, and he lacked initiative. The play of the forwards did not impress. They were a hard-working lot, and surely were not seen at their best. The tackling of the Wairarapa team was a feature of the game.