The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-11-24
THoRNToN's SIDE OF THE STORY.
Mr.. Kinds Ccrrects Statement Which
Was Inaccurate.

1t seems that a misunderstanding exists
regarding the game of football between
Thornton and Kent's Hill last Saturday.
In Tuesdays PRESS communication
was printed enbodying the claims of Mr..
W. d. Kinds and in that communication
it was stated that all of the Kent's Hill
team had left the field after the time
keeper had announced time up for the
half" Mr.. Kinds writes the PRESS,
under the date of Tuesday, to correct this
statement. He says in his letter that he
had no intention of saying all of the
Kent's Hill team had left the field when
time was called but that "some of them
had started to leave the field
This point having been cleared up by
Mr.. Kinds thesstatements made by Messrs.
Booth and Manning in the following
communication in relation to the question
in dispute, namely the right of the referee
to extend the time of the half, gives the
Thornton Academy's' side of the case:
Saco, Me-. Novem Der 30, 1897.
To the football Editor of the Portland
Daily PRESS:
Dear Sir:-In your paper this morning
we note n communication from Mr. W.
u I7llUS III T6SaTO uO IodUUrudy MENU 5
Hill Thornton game.
In justice to the other officials who
acted in the game referred to, and to the
Thornton team, we consider the following
explanation and statement is called for:
TO begin with Mr.. Kinds was not the
only time keeper, since Mr.. Frank
Twanbly, was also agreed on by the
homogeneous Of both teams to act with
Mr.. Kinds in keeping the time. Hence,
MIR. Kinds misrepresents the facts of the
case, when he says a. | was time keeper at
the Yhornton-kent's Hill game. He
should have said, Il was one of the time
keepers"
Tho incident referred to by Mr.. Kinds
happened in this way: After it had been
announced by the time keeper that time
was up, the captain of the Thornton team
called the referees attention to the fact
that time had not been taken out while
the referee was measuring the distance on
disputed decision Immediately before.
The referee admitted this and ordered
that the half loo continued one minute
more. Mr.. Kinds, Mr.. Twambly. the
players of the two teams, and all Others
concerned agreed to this ruling without
one word of dispute. Inasmuch as the
ball was then in the center of the field, it
seemed that the ruling could have no
possible effect either way.
AS to the right of the referee to make
this ruling, we would refer Mir. Kinds to
a part Of the official football rules, of rule
ID, section 1, which says, in prescribing
the duties of linesman, ''he shall also,
under direction of the referee, keep the
time " The rule that the time shall be
kept 'under the direction of the referee"
applies as much to a case where time
keepers alone keep the time as it does to
a case where the linesman keeps 1t. The
mere fact that part of the linesnRn's
duties are attended to by separate
official does not remove the duty from the
ultimate control of the referee. Had Mr.
Kinds had any considerable experience in
football, he must have known that the
referee always has the final decision on
questions of keeping time
(Signed) CHARLES D. BOOTH,
h. L. MANNING.