RUGBY FOOTBALL.

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume LVIII, Issue 10359, 23 April 1930, Page 4

RUGBY FOOTBALL.

OBJECTION TO WING FORWARD. At a meeting of the New Zealand Rugby Referees’ Association at Christchurch, the Chairman, Mr D. McKenzie (Wellington), said the Auckland Rugby Union had devised a method of getting rid of the wingforward, and he asked Mr Mackle to explain It. Mr Mackle said the adoption of an imaginary line in the back of the scrum had solved the question. He invited delegates to suggest a better means of dealing with the matter. Mr S. Hollander said the best way to get rid of the wing-forward was to adopt the three-two-three scrum, which was good enough for Britain and South Africa and should be good enough for New Zealand. "We have to get rid of the wingforward somehow,” said the chairman. He added that the wing-for-ward, as originally created, was a passive obstructionist, but now he was an out-and-out obstructionist. He considered that Auckland had solved the wing-forward question, but had also killed their charging forwards.

“The win-forward is a nuisance—always was and always will be,” said Mr H. J. McKenzie. "Every referee should be allowed to carry a gun and shoot him,” he added amidst laughter. Regarding the kick into touch rule, the chairman said that in his opin- , ion the ball should be considered out at the point at which it went-inlD touch. Mr P. C. Mackle drew attention to the annoyance which might be caused by the frequent use of the kick into touch, resulting in waste of time. Mr-H. J. McKenzie said that when the Springboks were here they objected to more than one ball being used in a game in New Zealand. It was usual to use three halls, one being in play and the other two being on the sidelines. He could not see how a referee could penalise a team if it chose to waste time by kicking the ball as far out of bounds as possible. Another delegate said he was certain that the English Rugby Union would object to three balls being used. The chairman said that if any team declined to play with more than one ball its objection must be upheld.