Waterbury Democrat., 1901-01-14


 such as to offer few attractions to the cranks. The disasters of the past sea- son have shown the truth of the oft repeated statement. that the public doesn't care whoop in purgatory for the rows between magnates and that they injure the sport seriously.
 POLO AND ITS REFEREES.
 As Applied to the Waterbury Incident and the Game in General.
 The Hartford Times polo writer is in bad way. Here is his latest.
 Those in the habit of attending polo games are well aware that it is by no means a gentle sport at its best, but that it has become rougher than need be will probably also be admitted. The players are not altogether to blame for this condition. for fn the heat of play ing, in the midst of always striving to gain possession and hold that elusive rubber sphere winch is knocked hither and thither and yon so mercilesSly, 8 man may not always conduct himself in strictly parlor fashion. - The real censor of the game, the person who is clothed with full power and authority under the rules to seethat the contest is conducted as it should be; conducted in 8 manner that will not call out the aboriginal instincts Of the players and spectators, and awaken in them the inbred pugilistic sense. is the referee When he fails in his duty when that duty, is made plain by actual occur rences before his eyes, and when he discriminates between two teams in favor of the one. he is incompetent in the first place and unjust in the last. Such being the case he has no business on the floor to judge the play. He be- comes simply figurehead, drawing so much per game.
 A case in point is the Doherty- Rus sell incident at Waterbury Wednesday night in which blows were exchanged and Doherty was put off the floor. Not that there have been no similar happenings this season. but this one is the latest. The disposition of players to "foul' without being rounded up in sharp manner by the referee is what has made such incidants so frequent The Waterbury atfairjwilldo for text at any rate. S.
 The trouble on that night occurred in the second period.s Barney was near Hartford's cage after the ball and Russell was mixed up with him. The story comes from Waterbury that the Hartford man struck the first blow. Barney says he did not, but that Rus sell struck him in the face. Goaltend Starkie bears out this" statement. Doherty says that he was surprised for an instant, not knowing what called, forth the blow, thena his head ran away with him. and he struck. back. This awoke the crowd and it apparent ly wanted Barney's scalp then and there. This was where Referee Lush had an opportunity to do the fair thing. Both men were concerned in , the scrap" let both suffer. But,. no! Doherty was put out of the game and Russell was allowed to continueIa, thing almost unheard of before this season. Where two players engaged in an affair of that kind. it had always been customary and considered the fair thing to penalize both men equally; it one goes, both go.
 This instance was only one of fimany on the same evening in which Hartford men claim they were not fairly treated. MT Cotter states that he alone was the victim of at least twenty fouls and that Lush admitted them, but would give no redress. At last Cotter said to Wodtke, "We'll see whether Lush will AlolASS q AouA OS dl A4dI LULU uhSA to make a test case, caught a Water bury man by the jersey and held him. The whistle blew at once and Cotter was penaliZed.
 The explanation seems to have been furnished in conversation which MT Cotter says he had with Referee Lush q short time ago. MT Lush is credited with talking something like this, with particular reference Waterbury, when brought to task regarding his failure to call the rankest kind of fouls on teams opposed to Hartford and making the latter suffer.
 "Well, what can do? Those fellows would run me off the floor if I did. Now in Waterbury a referee must not decide against the home team if he wants to go there again. In Hartford it is different. The crowd is easy. They may kick on decision, but no serious demonstration is made. Hart ford players are quiet. too. A man must look out for his own interests somewhat"
 General complaint is made by mem- bers of the other two teams-New Brit ain and New Haven-that Mir Lush invariably favors Waterbury in his de cisions, both at home and abroad. This seems to bear out his conyersati ton with Mir Cotter to the effect that ref cree must not decide against that team if he wants to- go to Waterbury again.
 Mir Lush is gentleman and per sonally agreeable and well liked ana there is no doubt but that he under stands polo from A to z. For that very reason he should see that the dignity of the game is upheld. Patrons of the game pay good money to witness the contests and are entitled to see the fairest game possible. If 1t is to be "go-as-you-please'' affair and the play CTS left to play any old way, why no referee is necessary. Anybody can place the ball and blow the whistle:
 It is not claimed that the Hartford team is a paragon of goodness and nev- CT the aggressor. The question hinges on fairness to all concerned. No one questions the ability and capacity for good judgment of Mir Lush, but 1t is the apparent failure to exercise that Judgment which lays him open to crit icism. He should do his duty fairly or retire and make way for . man who wilI sS.