VITAL RUGBY ISSUES

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21648, 5 December 1935, Page 16

VITAL RUGBY ISSUES

LONDON CONFERENCE THIS MONTH SUGGESTED REVIEW OF SCORING VALUES [By THANE.] At a conference arranged by the English Rugby Union, mistakenly called in some English newspapers an "Empire" conference, which will be held in London on December 18. a proposal is to be made by South Africa that the value of a goal from a mark should be reduced from three points to two, and that the value of a dropped field goal should be reduced from four points to three. Representatives will be present from New Zealand, New South Wales, and South Africa, but Scotland, Ireland, and Wales will not be represented. The conference thus has no executive powers and whatever alterations to the rules are agreed upon will have to go before the other unions afterwards. According to latest advice from England the proposal to reduce the value of the mark seems to have general support, but there is bound to be great argument concerning the proposal to alter the value of the field goal. It has long been contended that it is unfair to give the same value for a mark as for a try. Value of the Mark Many have pointed out that the kick of a player that 1 ads to an opponent making a fair catch for a mark is often the result of over-anxiety under pressure, or an unsuccessful attempt to find touch by a legitimate method, and for

a goal from such a fair catch to count as much as a penalty goal is giving it too high a reward. Penalty kicks are given for unfair play and in many instances a try would have probably resulted had the offence not been committed. There is a balance of opinion for and against the points awarded for a dropped goal and the issue is bound to create controversy. All conservative unions are certain to oppose the change, and England will probably lead any opposition. It is claimed by an Australian correspondent of a Sydney newspaper that the New Zealand delegates will press strongly for the adoption of both proposals. Many More Important Issues It has been correctly stated by many critics in England that if the discussions of such minor amendments to the' rules is the only reason for the conference? then it was not worth while, as the expense of sending delegates from the Dominions was heavy. Correspondence could settle the issues, with little expense. It is generally hoped among Rugby authorities in New Zealand that several very important questions will be discussed across the table. Undoubtedly one of these ought to be a proposal to form an Imperial Rugby organisation, if not in conjunction with the International Board, then in conjunction with the English Rugby Union. This body could put Dominion tours on a better basis so that, as in cricket, each Dominion and England should participate in the profits of its own matches abroad as well as at home. There is no logic of equity to support the present practice of the unions of Great Britain by which they retain all the profits from Dominion tours there. A fair share of the money should be given to the Dominion concerned in each case, and if this matter is not thoroughly discussed at this conference then a rare opportunity has been missed by legislators of the game in the various Dominions. Naturally New Zealand will be interested, also, in discussion of sections of the rules concerning set scrums, kicking into touch, and other less important features,