Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-04-02
THE CONY ANSWER.

f1lgH ana COHy 1lSH, TWO OlQtlH1e
rivals. has been handed a former Cony
athlete, who submits the following:
The article is well written and in a
good many ways has the right dope.
1t certainly is tough luck that these
two teams cannot engage in athletic
contests without always having a dis
pute. 1t is the one big contest of the
season for both teams whether it be in
baseball or football, and a contest long
looked forward to by all of the ardent
supporters. Gardiner makes an earn
est appeal that athletic relationship
should be continued. l think it should.
There is absolutely no question but
what Cony- Gardiner games result in a
great financial income and the two
schools ought to resume athletic re-
lationship.
1T is matter of considerable
pleasure to behold the spectacle of the
larger neighbor humbled in defeat. To
be sure. it isn't always that way but
that is just the difference between the
two-Gardiner High is willing to take
its chances on that" says the Gardi
ner management. OF course this
question of "humbIed in defeat is
merely an opinion formed by someone
which that someone is fully entitled
to do, and is a matter of very little
importance in connection with wheth-
er or not the two schools are to ever
play in athletic contests.
The account in the Gardiner paper
states that Cony's reason for not
playing Gardiner are that the schedule
is completed and that there are no
open dates, and then goes on to state
that shortly after the Cony schedule
appeared in the Kennebec Journal and
there were several open dates. Ii
this is the right dope it does not hard
ly seem to be just the right way for
Cony to explain itself; for as the
Gardiner article further states lit is
almost always the custom for man
ager in making up his schedule to
choose the dates to play the rival
team and then build the remainder of
his schedule around these dates" In
regard as to whether the Cony man
ager left all of the Gardiner letters
unanswered until he had appealed to
the principal of the school is true or
not, the writer is not in position to
state, but the main point is, why
don't these two schools get together,
play the game, and cut out some of
this primary school squabbling? The
whole matter hinges right on that
point, and one big factor why there
has been so many arguments is be-
cause of the lack of competent Of
ficials. m 4z.4s.sl'
In regard to the following bit of
history in the way of explanation
which the Gardiner writer has so well
written, there might be and in all
probability is a chance for an argu-
ment which would take more than a
full daily paper to do justice. There
fore ! am not going to try and waste
time and space in arguing the matter
in detail. Nevertheless, l think it a
duty to take up a, few of the points
advanced in the way of argument.
For a starter, whole para graph is
devoted in explaining that memorable
contest of two years ago when dark
ness came down upon Quimby field,
the spectators commenced to wind
their weary tread homeward and
Gardiner demanded that the game be
given to them and called on account
of darkness. Cony refused and agreed
to play 10 minutes more. An agree
ment WAS made, and the writer of the
article in the Reporter Journal has
very cunningly omitted that Gardiner
agreed also to play that extra 10
minutes, and in that 10 minutes when
old "Chutter" Harvey went around left
end for a 20-yard run and touch
down and victory, holler immediate
" went up from the Gardiner sup
porters that it was too dark to play.
Both teams lined up and on the very
next play Gardiner commenced to take
advantage of that darkness and the
center, a very reputable and agrees
sive player, without swapping the ball
to any one in the backfeld. picked 1t
up and ran half the length the dis
lance to the Cony goal line.
Here is where the incompetent Of
fetal played his part. he didn't know
whether to let the play stand or put
the ball back in play where it started.
A Harvard grad who was on the side
lines was appealed to for assistance,
l ran out on to the field with a pocket
searchlight and held it while the rule
book was consulted. 1t did not take
long to decide the play, the ball went
back where it started from and where
any competent official who knew has
business would have put it. 1t gen.
orally takes two parties to make an
agreement" Cony agreed to play that
extra 10 minutes and Gardiner High
never has had the name of giving any
gold bricks to any team, 1t therefore
did not leave the field and give the
game to Cony, but agreed to play.
And then comes an argument about
that game last fall on the Reuel Will
liams field and in connection with that
argument the statements made do not
coincide with some of those which APP
pear near the beginning of the arti-
Gle. In one paragraph it states that
two years ago, etc, Gardiner lost
very important football game to Cony
owing to the fact that Cony refused to
live up to an agreement. Gardiner
protested and Cony came out strong
with the abide by the umpire stuff"
Such was not the case when Gardiner
High won a game by decision at Au-
gusta last fall. And then right in the
very paragraph of the game last fall
It goes on to tell what the referee did
in regard to calling time out. Who
was it that called time out, the referee