Brisbane Courier (Qld. : 1864 - 1933), Tuesday 4 July 1899, page 7


SATURDAY'S FOOTBALL MATCH.

THE DISPUTED GOAL.

THE REFEREE 'rNITDURVIIEJWIBD.

With regard to the goal kicked by the Englishmen in the match against Queensland on Saturday, which was disallowed by the referee, Mr. Faulkner, and which has given rise to much discussion, Mr. Faulkner states that he awarded a free kick to England against Currie for not putting the ball into the scrum fairly. Mr. Faulkner states he stood at the spot of infringement and over which the Englishmen had to kick. Tanner and Graham, two of the Queensland. foryards, stood at the same spot, waiting to charge the kick, which should have been from a spot directly opposite the two forwards mentioned. Instead of 'that, however, the ball was placed fully three yards away from the correct spot. Immediately on the kick being taken Tanner appeared, saying, "'Not over mark, referee." Mr. Faulkner states further that he immediately blew his whistle, and ordered a scrum In compliance with law 10, which provides that the ball shall be kicked from a spot in a line with the mark made by the referee.

j Mr. Faulkner considers that under the circumstances

he could not possibly have given any other decision.

I A representative of this paper said to Mr.

Faulkner, " But many people are of the opinion that you did not blow your whistle."

" Oh, yes, I did," he replied. " Imime

diately Tanner appeared I blew the whistle

and ordered a scrum."

I "But when you saw that the ball was I not placed correctly, was it not your duty

to have informed the player placing it ?"

" No," said Mr. Faulkner. "It was not

I my duty. In all the matches in which I

have acted as referee I have always stood at the spot of infringement and intimated

that the ball must be kicked over that mark. I followed out that principle

throughout the match on Saturday. No one on the ground would have been more pleased than I would to have seen England get the three points, as It was such a fine kick, but under the circumstances I could not allow it."

THE STATE IINTEIRIMATTONAL FOOTBALL

MATCH.

TO THE EDITOR. A

SIR-It was with much surprise that I read the Rev. M. IMullineux's remarks as to the referee in the above match, which appeared in this morning's " CounT," and think that they work a great injustice to Mr. Faulkner, who for a number of yearshas been looked upon as an efficient and impartial referee, not only by our own players, but also by New Zealand and New South Wales teams who have frequently visited us. Mr. Mullineux complains that Mr. Faulkner interprets the rules too closely to the letter." Now, surely, the English captain must know that the rules for football, cricket, or any other purpose are not framed for amusement, and it is the duty of a referee to abide by the rules In existence when appealed" to at all events, the Englishmen appeared to have found no fault with Mr. Faulkner's refereeing in Sydney, when, as all followers of the game know, they were successful. He also complains that the goal kicked by Adamson was disallowed ; even if it had been allowed the final result of the match would

have been unaltered ?

-I am, sir, A?.,

BRITISH FAIRPLAY.