THAT RUGBY PACT.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 163, 12 July 1928, Page 16

THAT RUGBY PACT.

No Advantage Rule.

ALL BLACKS' ERROR.

GAVE AWAY WINNING FACTORS TO SOUTH AFRICA.

WERE THEY "HAD"?

The pact made between the South African Rugby Union and the N.Z. Rugby team concerning interpretations of the rules has been the subject of keen discussion among local Rugby enthusiasts during the past week. George Nicholson, who was among the 1905 All Blacks in Britain, and A. Lucas, a member of the Army Service Team in South Africa in 1919, are among those overheard to express opinions that in this pact with regard to the front row of tke scrum and the wing-forward the New Zealanders resigned the advantages of their own special formation, and gaVe every advantage to the Africans. The nature of these advantages were explained in some detail to a "Star" representative by Mr. P. Mackie, an old referee of prominence and ex-president of the Auckland Referees' Association, who holds that the All Blacks gave themselves into the hands of their opponents in every respect. In the first place, he pointed out, the All Blacks agreed' to pack the scrum "alternately man fur man" and not to "allow two or more players to pack with their heads together." Thus the New Zealanders gave up the only weapons they possessed as a 2 —3—2 scrum side for countering the 3—2—3 scrum of the Africans. Th-;y agreed: (1) to balance the African scrum; (2) to give the opposition the loose-head all the time; (3) to refrain from "splitting" the opposition or cutting out the middle man of the African front row by the New Zealand front-f-ankers putting their heads together. This, Mr. Mackie pointed out, put the All Blacks at a hopeless disadvantage in trying to hook the ball against a team of equal weight and ability. Barriilg accident, or weak scrum ability, the Africans must get the bait every time in such circumstances;

Wiag-forward "Retired."

Then the Actual forward value of the wing-forward was OOt out by agreemect to regard him as * serum half. When he put the ball in the scrum he was required to retire behind his own scrum, whereas by the rules of the game this wras necessary only in the event of his own team hooking the ball. According fftth* rules a wing-forward, if the opposition hooked the ball, could advance Pth the ball, and so long as he kept one foot behind the line of the ball he w«ts iWi A position to pounce to* mßm m Wu Mil inh b»u

ranched him. The whole line of back? behind the wing-forward (in a defensive position) also advanced, taking the wingforward as a guide, and were in a position to smother an opposition attack, whether it Were attempted either by passing or kicking, By the pact the wing-forward was set back so as to give the half-back and his supports a sure four to six yards' clearance every time the ball went to them from the scrum — a tremendous advantage to a team in a good attacking position, and an equally great advantage for clearing one's goalline from a scrum.

Added to these concessions the All Blacks agreed that where a player took a pass off-side the penalty should be a scrum, instead of the advantage being given to the non-offending side. That is to say that when the All Blacks were the offenders the penalty was not a freekick but a scrum —in the circumstances always an advantage to South Africa. When South Africa offended they still got the advantage of a scrum, instead of a free-kick against them. Mr. Mackie raised a further point that the English Union last season had passed a regulation that no union must contract outside the rules of the game In this pact, he said, the two parties hat contracted outside the rules in the packing of the scrum, the retiring of the wing-forward, the agreement to wait for the formation of a scrum before puttirg the ball in, and permission to players to run into a gap in the line-out. Summing up, he declared that by the pact the All Blacks had put themselves entirely in the hands of South Africa. "Either they Were so foolish and swellheaded," he commented, "as to think they could give away a lot and still beat the South Africans, or else they had not the 'nous' to understand what they were doing. It appears to me that the argument of an open game was used to prevail on tliem to agree to the interpretations put down. So they were 'had,' for the South Africans have clearly used the interpretations to enable them to get the ball and close the game up except when in a position to kick goals."