NEW SCRUM RULE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 16, 20 January 1932, Page 9

NEW SCRUM RULE.

VITAL RUGBY CHANGE. NEW ZEALAND'S HAND' FORCED WING-FORWARD TO GO. THREE MEN IN FRONT ROW. Although Mr. S. §. Dean, president of the New Zealand Rugby Union, has made an announcement that it is the opinion of the union that the wing-forward should be disposed of and that New Zealand should adopt the 3—2—3 scrum, actually the hand of the New Zealand Union has been forced by a new scrum rule which has been introduced. Rugby Union officials and players in Auckland, realising that New Zealand gave an assurance to the English Union that the Dominion would adopt the laws of the game laid down by them, have come to the conclusion that the new scrum rule was deliberately designed to do away with the wing-forward and the 2—3—2 scrum. There appears to be a that New Zealand, after promising to" accede to all English Union rules, ha°s been trapped, and that the only thing left to do is to accept the 3— l—A scrum.

How such a course will affect New Zealand football remah.s to be seen, it has been said by Mr. Dean that the wing-forward is a destructive force so far as attacking play is concerned, but it is also a fact that the break-away forwards in a 3—Z—3 scrum can be almost as effective spoilers as a wingforward. Ivor Jones, the famous breakaway of the 1930 British team, proved that. The Rules. Rule 15 (1), framed by the International Rugby Eootball Board, is a new rule, and is the one over which there is likely to be great controversy: — No player in a scrummage shall raise a foot off the ground or advance either foot beyond the line of feet ot -his front row"forwards until the ball is fairly in the scrummage, and the first three feet of the front row forwards of each team on the side on which the ball is being put in shall not be so raised or advanced until tin ball has passed them. Rule 15 (g) is the same: — The ball is not fairly in a scrummage until it has been put in straight, has touched the ground between tlid opposing players, and has passed both feet of a player of each team.

The effect of the new rule (I),_ as interpreted by the English Rugby Union, will be to make it practically impossible for a 2-3-2 scrum to hook the ball against a 3-2-3 formation. But the biggest point about the new rule, as far as New Zealand is concerned, is its effect on the 2-3-2 scrum. Interpreted according to the English ruling, it will mca:i that the ball can only be hooked by the outside foot of the outside hooker, because (he rule states that "the first three feet of the front row forwards of each team on the side on which the ball is put in shall not be raised or advanced until the ball has pttssed them." Difficult to Interpret.

Once New Zealand has fallen into line and accepted the 3-2-3 scrum and the much-criticised wing-forward lias been eliminated, the "three feel'' part of the rule will probably be ignored by referee*, and tlie (inly rule which will be rigidly observed will be rule (g), which staf,j~ that the ball must pa~s both feet of ■■' player of each team. It is realised that the' "three feet" clause would be most, difficult to interpret. In the meantime, the New Zealand Union has circularised all unions throughout the country, and the matter will be thrashed out at the annual meeting of the New Zealand Union. Although the circular is branded "confidential," it has become known that new methods of administration of the game arc also to be discussed. Chairman's Views. "The new ruling about putting the ball in the scrum seems to jeopardise our 2-3-2 formation," said Mr. Harry Frost, chairman of the management committee of the Auckland Rugby Union. "The referee lias now difficulty enough in locating the playable spot with the ball having to pass both feet of a player on either side. To make it three feet will add considerably to the present difficulty. The Rugby Union's idea, no doubt, is to eliminate the wingforward and to have a uniform scrum of 3-2-3.

"This may not meet with general approval in New Zealand, although if sucli a formation would effectively eliminate the wing-forward there would no doubt be many converts to such a formation. May not the trouble be only partly eliminated? The breakaways will still be able to operate as spoilers, if I mis-

take not. Auckland, to my mind, solved the wing-forward trouble with its 'definite' line at the back of the scrum and the referee to put the ball in the scrum on all occasions. This would seem to be the only effectual solution. Unfortunately, this method did not meet with approval other than in Auckland. Even though there was opposition, the rule was operated in Auckland with great success for some time. The matter is an important one and will require careful consideration." "Impossible to Hook Ball." "It seems to me that the new scrum rule has been deliberately framed to kill our 2—3—2 formation," said Mr. F. W. Lucas, All Black, and former Auckland skipper. "It will be an impossibility for a 2—3—2 formation to hook the ball against a 3—2 —3 scrum. Not only that, it will be a most difficult thing for two scrums, packing 2—3— 2. to hook the ball at all, because if the rule is interpreted as it should be the outside men will be able to use only their outside feet." The only thing New Zealand could do would be to accept the Rugby Union rules, said Mr. Lucas. If we accepted, the only thing to do would be to play 3—2—3. It was not likely that the English Union would give us a special dispensation for the scrum rule, because obviously the rule had been designed to force our hand.

"So our wing-forward will be done away with," said Mr. Lucas. "England has always maintained that out; wingforward is an obstructionist, and Mr. Baxter even went so far as to say that the wing-forward was a cheat. But what about Ivor Jones, the star backranker of the British team? He was nothing more nor less than a spoiler. He was just as bad as any of our wingforwards. The only difference between the style of football Ivor Jones played, compared with Clitf Porter's, was that our man did not put his ear in the scrum. This new rule was framed for a 3 —2 —3 scrum."