REMEDY THAT DID NOT CURE

Auckland Star, Volume LXXVI, Issue 88, 14 April 1945, Page 8 (Supplement)

REMEDY THAT DID NOT CURE

Auckland Referees Again Want To Put The Ball In The Rugby Scrum

THERE is nothing new in the recommendation of the Auckland Referees' Association that the referee be empowered to put the ball into the scrum. The practice has been tried out in the past in Auckland and in other centres but not with the express permission of the New Zealand Rugby Union. Although in theory the proposal has much to recommend it, for some reason or other it failed to bring about any material improvement in the admittedly unsatisfactory scrummaging position.

Particularly since the three-fronted scrum came into force, it is a common occurrence for the half-back to put the ball two or three times into the same scrum. The story, however, was much the same when the referee placed the ball in the scrum. Actually, the referee holds' the solution in his own hands. Either the ball is put in correctly or it is not. If there is an infringement, then one or other side should be penalised. Mr. E. McKenzie, All Black selector for years, held very strong views on that point.

'Mr. Claridge: Give it a go. We have never tried it. Why not have a practice match and see how it works out.

One improvement resulting from allowing the referee to place the ball in the scrum is that the front row men hooked on more even terms. It is common knowledge that an experienced half-back can contribute very largely to the raking success of his team. There was the case of Eric Tindall and Arty Lambourn in the Wellington representatives prior to the war. When Tindall put the ball in it was pounds to pence that Lambourn would secure possession. When the opposing half did the job, however, it was often a different story.

"Only Fair Way" The Auckland Referees' Association maintains that the only way to ensure that the ball goes in fairly is to allow the referee to do the job. It was also held that if the proposal were carried, the number of penalties for scrum infringements would be very considerably reduced. It was only natural, an official of the association stated, <that the halfback putting the ball in would do all he could to assist his front row men to get the ball. The referee, on the other hand, would «be impartial and would be only concerned with seeing that the ball was correctly placed in the scrum.

Whatever may be said in favour of the Auckland proposal, however, the fact remains that when the referee places the ball in the scrum, he takes over the duties of a player and automatically joins in the game. And that is where he puts himself off-side with Rugby purists, who insist that the laws of the game provide that it be played by two teams of fifteen players.

In the early 30's there was the classic case of Bert McKenzie, acknowledged to be one of the most competent referees New Zealand has ever produced. Controlling a Ranfurly Shield match between Hawke's Bay and Wairarapa, McKenzie had so much trouble with scrum infringements that he took the law into his own hands and placed the ball in the scrum himself. His' action, of course, raised a storm of controversy. Discussion in Wellington Auckland's remit came before the Wellington referees this week and decision was reached by a large majority to oppose the remit, but the suggestion was not without its supporters, Mr. C. E. ("Stump") Claridge being one who was strongly in favour of it. Attention was drawn to several practical difficulties involved in the proposal and emphasis was laid upon the duty of referees to see that the ball is fairly placed in the scrummage. The president, Mr. J. Gilchrist, said that the executive had briefly considered the matter and had decided that the change could not be made as the referee would then become a player. "You put the ball in," he said, "something happens to your arm, and the ball does not go in properly. What do you do then? Penalise yourself?" Mr. G. A. O'Sulllvan moved and Mr. T. G. Taylor seconded that the remit be opposed. Mr. J. H. Chapman, supporting the motion, said that though he wore an Auckland referee's blazer he thought the remit did Auckland little credit. If such a 'suggestion were sent to England it would cause New Zealand, despite its Rugby standing, to be held to ridicule. Mr. A. de Clifton said that though he did not agree with the Auckland remit he was hot concerned about the referee becoming a player. That could be overcome by altering the rules. His argument, as a former front-ranker, was that the ball was given to the non-offending side, or the defending side when there was infringement, so that that side could gain some advantage. The advantage could be gained not by "putting one across" but by the half-back having an understanding with his front-row men. If he thought Auckland's suggestion would result in both sides getting what was due to them he would support it. "Secret Understanding" Mr. Claridge said that, like Mr. de Clifton, he had played most of his football in the front row, both in the 2-3-2 and in the 3-4-1 scrum. There was nothing more exasperating than the scrummage as it operated at the present time. The halfback might claim to have a secret understanding with his hookers, but it was not a secret, it was putting one across the referee, added Mr. Claridge. If the referee put the ball in the scrums that would do away with all arguments. "No referee can control a game properly the way the ball is being put in at the present time," the speaker continued. 'If the referee was the sole judge —.

Voices: He is. "No he is not. He cannot see what twelve feet are doing. I would sooner have a 2-3-2 scrum with the referee putting the ball in, and fourteen men on each side. I am luu per cent with Auckland. People say the referee might cheat, but if he is going to do that he might cheat in the rest of the game, too. If it so happens that he does not put the ball in correctly, then he simply blows his whistle and puts it in again. "When the referee goes on to the paddock," said Mr. Taylor, "he has sufficient things to look after. He has to watch the time, see that the ball is put in fairly, and has to see tf-at evf-y man has his feet behind a line drawn through the scrum when the ball is in the scrum."

Mr. J. P. Murphy: I think it is a farce and a waste of time arguing about it.

Mr. A. Hooper: It is not a waste of time; it is an interesting discussion. The scrummage is a source of trouble and it is caused by referees not awarding penalties when the ball does not go in properly.

Mr. O'Sullivan: If we are going to play in the game, then we should do the thing properly and join a club. (Mr. Claridge: Rubbish!). We are only there to see that both sides get a fair go. If we want someone to put the ball in then we should keep special men on the sidelines.

Mr. Gilchrist referred to the possibility of the ball being in a distant part of the field when a scrum was ordered. The referee might ask a player to get it for him and be told to "Get the —— thing yourself." (Laughter.)

It was also pointed out during the discussion that, since the law says that the ball must be propelled "with both hands," a one-armed referee, of which New Zealand has had several, would not be able to put the ball in the scrum.

The motion was carried by an overwhelming majority.