Club History 1902: The one we threw away?

[SgtSchulz]

Does anybody know exactly what happened when at the end of the 1902 season after the club finished minor premier? Port was supposed to play South Adelaide in the preliminary final? I think the dispute was over match proceeds but Port Adelaide offered to play North Adelaide with all proceeds going to the Children's Hospital.

SAFA, different name, same campaigners.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/56255969?searchTerm=football&searchLimits=l-advcategory=Article|||l-advcategory=Detailed Lists, Results, Guides|||l-advcategory=Literature|||l-advstate=South Australia|||requestHandler=/headingSearch|||sortby=dateAsc|||l-decade=190|||l-year=1902|||l-month=9

 

[tribey]

LOL. Classic SANFL.

 

[I Dont Care]

Wasn't there something about an umpire around that time?

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Bloody Ken Cunningham, I knew I'd seen him in Night Stalker.

 

[ozph1870]

yeah im pretty sure we had issues with an umpire, maybe richard williams... and when he was given our match we forfeited.

 

[JimmyBeerCans]

Back when John Olsen had hair

 

[Power Raid]

Wasn't there something about an umpire around that time?

"North were therefore scheduled to play West Torrens in a final on Saturday 30 August and the Port-South final was to be played on Monday 1 September (a public holiday), following a match between Yorke Peninsular and a combined18. North won their final comfortably, 6.9 to 1.3. But in a sensational development, Port refused to play under the appointed umpire (Mr Kneebone). This was first announced on Saturday afternoon, but only confirmed on the morning of the match. When it was apparent that the game would not go ahead, North were approached to play an exhibition game against South. To their enormous credit, despite the extremely short notice and the absence of several of their best players, North managed to field a team of 18 and put in a creditable performance. The issue of the forfeit was discussed at length at the Association meeting on the following Wednesday and Port were disqualified from the finals. It was agreed that South and North would meet in the grand final on the following Saturday."

http://australian-rules-football.wikia.com/wiki/1902_SAFA_Grand_Final

 

[Power Raid]

sorry for the formatting but a transcript from the advertiser in 1902

A FOOTBALL DISPUTE

PORT ADELAIDES DISQUALIFIED.

A special meeting of the South Australian Football Association was held at the Prince Alfred hotel on Wednesday evening for the purpose of discussing the action of the Port Adelaide Club in refusing to play the match against the South Adelaides on the Adelaide Oval on Monday last. The Ports forfeited the match, the reason they gave being that they would not play under the umpire chosen by the association. Mr. J. R. Anderson presided, and there was a full attendance of delegates.

The South Adelaide Club wrote:-"Here with please find letter dated September 1 from the Port Adelaide Club, forfeiting tho match to my club set down for that date." The letter enclosed was as follows:-"In the event of the umpire committee of this South Australian Football Association insisting on Mr. Kneebone being umpire in the match Port Adelaide v. South Adelaide, it is the intention of the Port Adelaide Club to forfeit the match to th. South Adelaide Club." *

The discussion was opened by Mr. Sweeney, one of the Port Adelaide delegates, asking on what authority the umpire committee had appointed Mr. Kneebone an umpire of the association.

The secretary (Mr. A. E. Lawton) explained that the authority was contained in a motion recorded in the minute-book, and which was as follow.-. Mr. Grayson moved, and Mr. Rowley seconded, that the umpire committee recommend at once two additional umpires for appointment. Carried. Umpire committee withdrew, and on returning recommended that Mr. Kneetione be asked to send in an application. The recommendation was approved on Mr. Coombc's motion, seconded by Mr. Supple. .

Mr. Lawton stated they received the following reply, dated June 10: I am in receipt of your letter of June 14, and - note your remarks re field umpire. At the present moment I do not aspire to the position, and will therefore refrain from putting in an application.

Mr. Sweeney-Is there any minute to the effect that the association did appoint him? Mr. Lawton-Since then there has been nothing in the minutes with regard to Mr. Kneebone.

Mr. Sweeney-My opinion is that Mr. ' Kneebone was not appointed an umpire of this association.

The Chairman-That is the view I take of it. Mr. A. C. Thomas held that Mr. Knee- bone had been appointed by the resolution mentioned being adopted. The fact that he said he could not act for the present was not to be taken as meaning that he declined the position.

Mr. Claxton thought the resolution gave the umpire committee power to appoint Mr. Kneebone at any future date. The Chairman pointed out that the power of appointing delegate was vested solely in the association, and the umpire committee allotted them, when appointed, to the matches.

Mr. Griffiths asked whether, if Mr. Kneebone had accepted, he could have been allotted to a match straightway. The Chairman-1 don't think so.

Mr. Thomas said the umpire committee were perfectly entitled to consider that Air. Kneebone was available if they could get him. They had noted on that impression. They had appointed him on the strength of his having been previously an association umpire. He (Mr. Thomas) defied anyone to say that they did not make the appointment in a perfectly legitimate way in the interests of the game, and not in the interests of any particular club. If the association did not affirm the action of the umpire committee in this matter he would retire from the committee.

Mr. C. J. Supple confidently asserted that the resolution carried was tantamount to appointing Mr. Kneebone. If he had been available he would have been appointed. He had acted as umpire of the association two years ago, and also last year, and until his appointment was annulled he still occupied that position.

The Chairman said he would formally rule that Mr. Kneebone was not appointed an umpire of the association: and as it was then custom to appoint umpires every season, he would also rule that the fact that Mr. Kneebone had been an umpire in previous seasons would not make him an association umpire at the present time, even if there had been no annulment of his appointment. He would welcome any resolution dissenting from that ruling.

Mr. Griffiths-I will move to dissent from your ruling if that is the only course of procedure.

Mr. Searcy.--If Air. Kneebone was not, properly appointed, then Mr. King and Mr. Carr were also in the same position. What would be the result of the matches in which they had acted?

The Chairman-There is no protest about them, so I take it they stand as they were.

Mr. Griffiths' motion was declared lost, the chairman's ruling being upheld.

The point was then raised whether the Ports were not liable to a penalty for forfeiting the match when, according to rule 30, it was stated-"At the end of the first round, a second- round shall be played as follows:-The first club shall plav the third club and the second club shall play the fourth club."

The Chairman gave it as his interpretation of the rule, that the word "shall" was not mandatory.

Mr. Claxton moved-"That the Port club have broken rule 30." The general public had been disgusted at the Ports for the manner in which they had forfeited the match. The public looked to the association to move in the matter.

Mr. Rowley said the Port club had madea great mistake, and probably they were ' sorry now that they had thought the matter over. '

Mr. Sweeney-Not a bit.

Mr. Rowley-If they did not agree with the appointment of the umpire they should have played the match under protest.

Mr. Searcy to Mr. Swcenej--When did you first know that Mr. Kneebone had been appointed?

Mr. Sweeney-On Friday night I heard it by a side wind, and on Saturday morning I rang up Mr. Lawton, and asked him if that was a fact, and he replied "Yes." I said, "I want to tell you very distinctly, we shall not play. Kneebone is not an association umpire-"

Mr. Lawton-You did not say, that, Mr, Sweeney.

Mr. Sweeney-I can only say that whatever my shortcomings may be, I don't tell lies. Mr. Laxvlon said. "Oh, yes. you will play." I said, "We will not. i don't care a rap so far as the 'gate' is concerned." Mr. Lawton said, "You are not playing for yourselves, but for the association," and_ I replied, "Well, then, give us an association umpire." I told Mr. Lawton again on Saturday afternoon that we would not play, and I told Mr. Griffiths the same night. My contention is that I gave the association every opportunity to make fresh arrangements. On Monday morning

I came especially to Adelaide to try and fix up some arrangement.

Mr. Searcy said the action of the pr0n club was wrong throughout. Mr- Sweeney had assisted to form the rules, and ought to know that under clause 43 his club could appeal to the association against any action of a sub-committee. He should have given notice to the association on Saturday, and asked for a special meeting to be summoned to discuss the matter.

The motion was carried.

The Chairman-Now it is for the association to deal with the Port Adelaideclub.

Mr. Griffiths said the Port club should be punished for breaking faith with the association and the public, and he moved that they be disqualified for the remainder of the season.

Mr. Searcy-I will second that. Mr. Bennett-I move as an amendment that the Port club be fined £10. Mr. Thomas-I shall oppose that. I am not going to be a party to the association handling any of the money of the Port club.

Mr. Searcy-I would like to withdraw from seconding the resolution if Mr. Griffiths will allow me to do so.

Mr. Griffiths declined to accede to the rennest. ., ,

Mr G. Coombs said he was personally much annoyed at the action taken by the Port club. He thought they were ill advised in forfeiting the match. Football had been especially good this season, and the public had given it a large share of their patronage. The Port club had by their action destroyed a great deal of the faith of the public in the association, and that body would suffer in consequence. He (did not feel justified in voting for the imposition of a penalty, but he hoped for the future no club would act as the Ports

Mr. Searcy said undoubtedly the Port club deserved censure. They had by that action thrown the game back three or four years.

The amendment that a fine be imposed was lost, and the motion that the club be disqualified for the remainder of the season was carried.

Mr. Sweeney-I thank the association very kindly- As my club is disqualified I shall now leave.

It was resolved that next Saturday' match between the Norths and the Souths should be the final contest for the premiership.

 

[mic59]

An interesting piece of SANFL history that came up is that of one P Kneebone ,an SANFL umpire who is not to be confused with Mr Kneebone although the general period is the same. P Kneebone umpired in the SANFL and in 1909 tendered his resignation due to a disqualification being thrown out. From the short SANFL report and from the newspaper report it appeared that P Kneebone may have been justified in objecting to the lifting of the suspension.

http://australian-rules-football.wikia.com/wiki/Phil_Kneebone

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/5726788?searchTerm=Kneebone

 

[TheFVK]

 

[Quadzilla]

The 'tiser editors back then were shite too

... Mr Searcy said the action of the pr0n club was wrong throughout.

 

[Power Raid]

The 'tiser editors back then we're shite too

... Mr Searcy said the action of the pr0n club was wrong throughout.

I will let the advertiser of the hook on this one as it was probably the digital converter creating the errors

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/4875685


but I do smile in reading the spoken english. geez how our language has changed.

 

[Jim Dixon]

No, this wasn't the 'one we threw away'. We were right then. Ford Fairlane 's signature about Port doing the heavy lifting for SA football is once again demonstrated in this fiasco. Port were quite right to stand our ground and demand competent umpires rather then SANFL cronies.

This was the first year we wore the wharf pylon jumper, and it was no small thing for us to forfeit a shot at the Premiership- at this point we only had 3 in the bank and were behind s**t clubs like South (amazing but true). We showed we weren't going to be pushed around. Yes, we may have missed out on the 1902 flag, but we got what we deserved afterwards.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Does anybody know exactly what happened when at the end of the 1902 season after the club finished minor premier? Port was supposed to play South Adelaide in the preliminary final? I think the dispute was over match proceeds but Port Adelaide offered to play North Adelaide with all proceeds going to the Children's Hospital.

SAFA, different name, same campaigners.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/56255969?searchTerm=football&searchLimits=l-advcategory=Article|||l-advcategory=Detailed Lists, Results, Guides|||l-advcategory=Literature|||l-advstate=South Australia|||requestHandler=/headingSearch|||sortby=dateAsc|||l-decade=190|||l-year=1902|||l-month=9

In 1902 (and before) until and including 1931 edit 1930, you had the Challenge Final in existence. If you finished minor premier but didnt win the "grand final" - you had the right to a challenge match to determine the ultimate premier for the year. Port both won and lost challenge finals when we both were minor premiers and lost a final, or we weren't minor premiers but won the "grand final" and then were challenged.

In 1902 we were the Minor Premiers - see LINK . We were kicked out of the finals because we forfeited the final against South because as others have posted, we refused to play a game with umpire Kneebone in control. If you read the article closely, Port comes up with the suggestion of playing a game against North who won the grand final - and all proceeds were to go to the Children's hospital.

Port were trying to get a pseudo Challenge Final game against North. They said they would respect that North were the premiers but sounds like Port wanted some sort of proof they were the better side. That's my take of what happened and why they even tried to get this game approved. From the article -

"He knew there was a rule that no club could play without the consent of the association, and, as the season was over, he asked if the association would permit this: North Adelaide Club, if they chose, to play Port Adelaide— the premiership not affected— next Saturday,the whole proceeds to be devoted to the Children's Hospital. He moved to that effect. Mr. Harvey seconded.— Mr. Thomas said it would be a great mistake to allow the game to be played. He had hoped ?when he saw the delegates of Port Adelaide that they would gracefully approach the association. Tlie decision of the association was absolutely just. If the clubhad approached the association, and some .expression of regret had been made at thestatements .made, he felt that the assocjaion might have even reversed their derision, but the time had gone for that,and if the association countenanced thematch with North Adelaide jt would placethem in an undignified position before thepublic. They must remain loyal to the resolution."

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Another reason why we wanted a pseudo Challenge Final in 1902 was we lost the 1901 GF by 4 pts to Norwood and finished Minor Premiers in 1902.

1901 was the last year as the Magenta's and 1902 was the first year we were the Magpies.

 

[tamba]

Fantastic reading of history , it reads like to me Port were not going to be pushed around by the SANFL even then.

 

[SgtSchulz]

After reading this I am fairly certain that Port Adelaide approached Calypso to put a curse on the SANFL that the more they try to screw us over the more we would win - which all coincided with the adoption of the Prison Bars.

Correlation = causation so this is a certified fact.