CHEAT?

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 122, 26 May 1930, Page 10

CHEAT?

RUGBY WING-FORWARD. BRITISH MANAGER'S CHARGE. "TALKING THROUGH HIS HAT" INDIGNATION EXPRESSED. "I think Mr. Baxter must have forgotten himself." This remark was made by Mr. J. Arneil, president of the Auckland Rugby Union, when asked his opinion of the charge of deliberate cheating made by Mr. James Baxter, manager of the touring British team, against the New Zealand Aving-forward. At a dinner after the match against Taranaki, at New Plymouth on .Saturday, Mr. Baxter is reported to have said: "The ordinary man who tries to play wing-forward is nothing more nor less than a cheat. He is deliberately trying to beat the referee by unfair tactics." The reported statement is published on our. illustration page. "It is to be hoped that the views expressed by Mr. Baxter are not held by all the members of his team,"- said Mr. Arneil after his comment quoted above. 'T am an old wing-forward myself and in the 50 years I have been connected - with the game I do not recollect one instance of a"player deliberately setting out to cheat. In calling all wing-for-wards cheats, Mr. Baxter is talking through his hat; I have a better opinion of footballers than to believe that they go on to the field deliberately to cheat." " Old Players Resent Charge." Mr. Arneil. said that sometimes a wing-forward - might offend,, but khe believed that the offence was committed only in the heat of the game and not with any deliberate idea of cheating. In his opinion ah English half back often functioned in "tho same way as a wing forward by',' getting round the scrum when he saw lite hookers had not got the ball. "'"Particularly was this noticeable'on the occasion of the- visit of the first English team. "Wc were sports enough on that occasion not to accuse the Englishmen of unfair tactics," he said. - ; "'Mr. Baxter's statement is, altogether too sweeping,". Mr. .Arneil continued. "In calling the wing forward a cheat he is accusing some of the most prominent men in New Zealand—men who played the wing, forward game years ngo—of being cheats! These old players are likely to resent the charge, and I think Mr. Baxter was ill-advised to 'make it. Possibly- lio did not intend his remarks to read exactly as they do , in print—l cannot believe that he did—but I think that he Ought to modify his statement," ~- -, — An Incident in Wales. The view that Mr. Baxter's remarks; should not "be taken seriously was expressed by Mr. .Arthur Lucas, who played as wing forward with the New Zealand Array team in. the British Isles, Prance, and South' Africa. "The poor olcl New Zealand wing forward" is no more an obstructionist than any of the Englishmen's own breakaway (back row) forwards," he said. "Illustrating his point Mr. Lucas told a 'story of an incident that happened in Wales in 1919 when he was with the Army team. The New Zealanders were playing a side known as. the "Pill Harriers"—the team included a number of Welsh internationals—at v Newport, and Mr. Lucas was the wing-forward. About half-way through the game one of. the Harriers, G. Boots, came out from the scrum and attempted to play ; wing-forward game, but.ln less than'ten minutes ho went backito'h'is place in the ,pa'c.k. During the time that Boots wasplaying as a wing-forward .there were half a dozen scrums.;and possession of the' ball.iwas.Equally divided. :.; Each time that the Harriefs hooked, however, Boots was-penalised; for obstructing, while Lucas was- never pulled up on the occasions • that ithe; Army side got the ball. Boot£arid v Lu,casl talked the matter of the wing-forward over after the match, Lucas arguing that there was no differ- ; ence. BeWeen'.: ; :the tactics of the New Zealand wing\£6i*ward and the Welsh breakaway forwards. Boots admitted that breakaway-"forwards at Home were instructed, to/protect their half-backs by obstructing their-opponents. The English iforira. of obstruction, explained Mr. Lucas, consisted.sometimes of the break-: \ away men swinging out frohithe scrum without actually leaving'it,. bu£ it was done with the Object of obstructing any opposing player going round to collar •their half-back and was.just as much obstruction as the tactic 3 adopted by the New Zealand wing-forward. Mr. Lucas further said that he did not remember ever being pulled up for deliberate obstruction by any referee in England, or South Africa. "PinPncks." ,:-..',". ..' The British team, concluded Mr. ' Lucas, should be asked whether they ! •were .observing every rule in the rule- ; book absolutely to the letter. The complaints which had been made by the ; yisitors—the charges against the wing- ■ •forward, and the questions of leaving '■ the field at half-time and the keeping of time—he characterised as "pin pricking" tactics. Mr.'F.'W. Lucas, who toured England iand South Africa with the All Black teams in 1924 and 192S .respectively, 1 supported his brother's views. The English breakaway forwards were worse offenders than the New Zealand wingforward. So much controversy had toeerl heard concerning the game played lby~the wing-forward in New Zealand ' that referees, as a whole, set out deli- ' fcerately to watch him and had no.eyes •! •for many other t things that went on. j)uring the match* between New Zealand I and England on the 1924 tour Voyce, »no of the English breakaways, was penalised for coming round the scrum «nd kicking Richardson's legs from ijndcr him. in an attempt to get the ball, \vhich was still in the scrum. Richardson. p,t the time, was playing in the second . low. From the penalty Mark Nicholls landed a gaol. ' Mr. F. Sutherland, referee, declined i|o make any comment on the charges, .While Mr. H. Frost, chairman of the Auckland union's management committee, eaid that he would make a reply A later date.