Grim Football

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20225, 1 May 1931, Page 10

Grim Football

The critical remarks on the New Zealand game offered by Dr. Adams, on retiring from the presidency of the New Zealand Rugby Union, will be very widely applauded, and this will not be simply in reaction to the fevers of last season. The evidence for what Dr. Adams says has been visible for years. It has attracted increasing at-tention-and has made even enthusiasts wonder bow enthusiasm can be kept healthy. It has led to a little action: to the disuse of the deplorable and ridiculous practice of putting footballers into training camps before big matches, and. perhaps to greater severity in dealing with gross breaches of the rules. On the whole, however, the mischief is still unchecked; but it j is extremely encouraging that it should be so boldly attacked,, though by a leader leaving bis leadership. Unless his successor and other authorities on the national and distinct unions think very differently, which can hardly be, or leave ill alone, which is not to be expected, should begin »t once, and, since the directions in wbjcji they may act are quite clear, it should be rapid. For instance, Dr. Adams refers to the " immense amount "of illegal obstruction" and to other provocative breaches of Rugby law. The remedy is not entirely in the hands of the referees. It is much nearer the truth, to say that the remedy is hardly in their hands at all. They must first know that they will have the full and ready support of the unions in dealing with reporled offenders; and unfortunately they have not- always had it, with the result that they have tended to feel themselves in a weak position and to rule accordingly. Again, the Rugby law-breaker is often able to conceal his infringements, at least from the referee, and belief in the usefulness of "getting away with it" is much too common. Both union officials and club officers have a responsibility here, which they do not generally fulfil. Union officials who sometimes see more than the referee sees can at the very least warn clubs against countenancing illegal play; while the clubs can, and should, drop persistent offenders. Probably more lies with the clubs than is sometimes thought. The rules, after all, are a set of conventions to help the players to play the game. Players who treat them as a set of handicaps or obstructions, to be circumvented if possible, are mistaking the nature as well as the spirit of the game; and the first duty of the clubs for which they play is to teach them better. The more a referee has to do with the game, the worse the standard of play; the more he has to do with it as policeman and judge, the worse the standard,of the players. If these principles were better understood and honoured, Dr. Adams's criticisms would not have been as necessary as thejr at*.