RUGBY WRANGLE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 72, 26 March 1930, Page 18

RUGBY WRANGLE.

VERBAL BATTLE WAGED. a AUCKLAND 'RULES » CONTROVERSY. CHANGE "NOT FAVOURED;

Rugby Union football in Auckland this year will be played under the same rules that were in force last year, the socalled "Auckland rules." This was decided at the annual meeting of the Auckland Rugby Union : last night, when a motion that the union should revert to New Zealand rules was heavily defeated. The verbal battle that raged for more than an hour was. waged along much the same lines'as last year, when a similar motion was,.*crushkigly. defeated. The ammunition used was not: new, the arguments advanced by .the warring factions being materially the same as those put forward last season. The first shot in the engagement was fired by Mr. A. St. C. Belcher, who moved the following motion:—"That all matches played under the jurisdiction of the Auckland Rugby Union should be played only under the rules adapted by the New Zealand Rugby Union and observed by the other unions throughout New Zealand." The motion was Seconded by Mr. C. T. Keegan and then the battle "was on in earnest. In speaking to his motion Mr. Belcher said that it was the opinion of those who favoured New Zealand rules that the extremely lean period in Auckland Rugby in 1917 was brought about by general stress rather than by any fault in the game itself. It had to be remembered tliat that time was the blackest period of the war. The rules as played in Auckland at present prejudiced both players and referees. Wellington, said Mr. Belcher, favoured the introduction of international rules/ and it was for Auckland to be in a . position to fight for the retention of the New Zealand rules. The union had to consider- the fact that if it did not drop the "Auckland" rules it might lose the ground; that it had gained. The local secondary schools hat}'asked that: they shoukL.be permitted to 'revert to ; the New Zealand rules. Apparently they found that they were at a disadvantage. The record of Auckland's representative team in recent years had been quoted in support of the local rules, but if one went back ten years or so before the war one found that the team's record then was considerably better and that in those days it was something of a tragedy if Auckland lost a single match. "Should Be Loyal." In siipport of Mr. Belcher, Mr. Stan. Clealjsaid that": there' appeafed". to him to be four mailt*'reasons, why tie union' revert to''{lie-rules which toere being played elsewhere in New, Zealand. Theseswere:,- placed on locaL.teams. byv tJae playing, of the-Auck-land rules; (2)' the fact that for ten years the other unions in New Zealand had watched tha. .Auckland experiment and yet • 'was 'still-., tie ' <raly' union playing the rules which had given rise to so'much discussion; (3) the fact that local referees were handicapped in the matter of selection for international or important representative matches; (4) the fact that the Auckland Union was under the control of the New Zealand Union and should abide by its rules and be loyal. An amendment that it be a recommendation to the incoming committee that an endeavour gaaade to obtain the playing of the 3-2^3f ; Scrum throughout New Zealand was moved .by A. Gray, who was'i i pf- ; tfe;fopinioti *t'hat the change would 'ffiut which had tangled the ment, however, was ruled out of order.-.' Instances of . provinces which had successfully fought rival codes and passed through extremely lean periods like that experienced by Auckland in the .war years without altering the laws were quoted by Mr. A. J. Billington. Leading Referee's Views. Strong support of the motion was voiced by Mr. A. J. Sutherland, who said that lie was speaking as a club delegate and not as a referee. "We claim that we are a Rugby union and yet we don't play Rugby football," he said. Why, he asked, should Auckland ostracise itself by playing rules that were not in the rule book? As a referee he Would say that referees had been handicapped by the local, rules., The claim that it had been the Auckland- •rules that 'had' brought the game back to popularity after 1917 was not, in lis opinion, fairly based. Such a clsim,.was. not; fair, to the soldiers who returned from the war about that time-and took-up the game again. It was they who had played a big part in reviving interest in the code. "I contend that if we had been playing the New Zealand rules last year the Ranfurly Shield would be in Auckland to-day," Mr. Sutherland ended. (Applause.) A stout defence of the Auckland rules was offered by Mr. Harry Frost. "You lave heard to-night men decry the rules wlich they have been associated with and approved of for twelve years'," he said. "What do you make .of ;it ; »" A Voice: They're learning sense.- » : Vi. Continuing, Mr. Frost said that" lis views on the Auckland rules 'weire" not changed, although they would; be,- if it was in the best interests .of' Auckland Rugby. There had been drawback's ,£o the Auckland rules, but they, had: done what they had been ifo;,- It was admitted that the "imaginary, line" rule had been introduced witli-xh'e 'idea of killing the wing-forward, but no one had suggested any other way of overcoming the difficulty. "Woe betide the junior players .in Auckland if you take them back to the old rules," declared Mr. A. A. Buckley. Messrs. H. Dawson and P. McElwain also spoke in favour of the local rules. - In reply to a question, Mr. Belcher said ■that if it was possible to have the-Auck-land rules made universal he would favour them, but this was not possible. He wished to make it clear that he and lis supporters were not advocating the old rules, but the present New Zealand rules. When the motion was eventually put to the vote it was defeated by 38 votes to 10. r * '