Wellington v. Auckland Football Match.

Thames Star, Volume XIV, Issue 4583, 12 September 1883, Page 2

Wellington v. Auckland Football Match.

The Wellington men claim a Victory, 1 and the local evening paper, the- Poet, 1 writes.-—"The unfortunate dispute Which arose at Saturday's football match, Wellington v. Auckland, is greatly to be 1 regretted. Ifc will prevent what was an unquestionable victory for Wellington from being looked back upon with the pleasure which such reminiscences usually excite. It will also materially diminish the interest taken in any future matches with Auckland. Nothing is more irri-» tating to players, either at football or cricket, than to be deprived of a fairly won victory through some trick on the part of theft opponents, or some blunder on the part of an umpire. In the present case there was a difference of opinion between the^ two umpires upon tha / disputed point, but the referee gave his verdict in favor of Welling, ton. According to all the laws which regulate sport, both sides were bound to abide by the referee's decision, howevec • unpalatable it might be. No true sportsman or lover of British fair play wonlj question this rule for a moment, yet we* are sorry to have to record that 4be Aucklanders committed this grave breach of propriety. Nor was this all. Not only did the Auckland captain refuse to accept the referee's decision, but he, alsa threatened to take his men off the field iff ifc were acted upon. A grosser, offence aga}j sfc, c laws aad etiqaette *F sport could hardly have been cot&mitted; a grosser insult to opponents could hardly have been offered. It was, in plain terms a deliberate attempt to bully the Wellington men into submission ta at ? aßrai? fc *ronK and injuatice. W» lament that snch an unworthy piece of bounce should hare bee* so far successful that the Wellingfoa men, through excess of courtesy, submitted to the outrageous and overbearingconduct of the captain, and allowed them-^J selves to be defrauded of their excellent*^ ebaaoe.ot scoring another gaol. We dia. tinotly disapprove of the action of the Wellington captain in. this matter. No doubt it wag-a well meant effort on his part to preserve good feeling, but the, conduct of the Aucklanders showed that the only way to secure their goodwill was to Jet th em win fairly or unfairly, and the ! Wellington captain had the honour of his v- •nC/ >nsider as weU as tha feelingaofinis lh-behaved aatagonists, and he, assuredly, ought not to have permitted an unless advantage to be taken of his testa. If the Auckland captain persisted in his refusal to abide by the referee's verdict, and in his threat to 'remove bis. men if the Wellington players maintained! tueir rights, the Wellington captain ought ,at once to have declared that he would not allow this wrong to be cfoae, aad ta have declined to continue playing, unless the rights of his team were recognised and the verdict of the referee implicitly respected. The whole affair is deplorably discreditable to the reputatio» of Auctlaud football. However, as for as Welling ton is concerned, anothw victory has beet* secured by our meo» who thus retaia forthis place the indisputable champsionflhi* —Welliagfcon having beaten Aucklaitf