RUGBY CHANGES WILL BE FOUGHT HARD AS USUAL

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 15, Issue 82, 14 August 1950, Page 3

RUGBY CHANGES WILL BE FOUGHT HARD AS USUAL

Rugby rule changes are being debated on all sides, but it may take a long time for even one of the proposed amendments to get to the statute book, writes T. A. Fleming.

Amendments from district unions have first to be sifted by the New Zealand Union. Then the New Zealand Union must endorse what remits it considers best—or change them drastically—and post the result, by September 1, to the secretary of the International Rugby Board in London. That still means seven months for further cogitation, as the meeting of the International Board will not be held until March 31, 1951!

Conservatives Still When it does meet, judging by past experience, there will be abundance of conservative argument against each and every one of the proposed amendments. The more there are, the less weight each particular one will carry. In the circumstances, it would probably be wise to concentrate on one or two; say, the suggestions for a two-fronted scrum and for a com-mon-sense replacement law. At the moment, the Canterbury Union appears to be one of the few district unions working towards the more-easily managed two-three-two

scrummage. Its recomendation reads: “That it should be illegal for more than two players to form either front row of the scrummage before the ball has been put in.” The present rule stipulates: “More than three players.” The present scrummage is unwieldly, and the laws necessary to govern it are cumbersome. To read them almost brings on a headache. But reforms will not come quickly no matter how good a case is made out.

Here are objections, to some of the proposed amendments, as put forward, informally, by members of the present British Isles team:

No whistle for an unintentional knock-on when the ball rebounds, and is caught again—the present rule is on the book to encourage clean, efficient catching. Replacement of injured players.— Teams from the United Kingdom have no desire to travel round the countrjr carrying emergencies and reserves who may never get a game. Proposed two-fronted scrum.—■ Eighth Forward ?

What are you going to do with the eighth forward? Eliminate the need to play the ball with the foot after a tackle.—• Might lead to more scuffling for possession on the ground, and sacks-on-the-mill business.

Kicking to touch on the full barred, except on defence.—New Zealand tried this up to 1930, under a special dispensation, and then threw it out as unsatisfactory. It is not too much kicking to touch that is a fault in modern Rugby, but too much kicking down-field into the safe hands of the opposing full-back.

Before they go to London, New Zealand delegates should acquaint themselves with the form and type of argument that will be used against their proposed reforms.