Our National Game

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 28001, 22 June 1956, Page 10

Our National Game

The thoughtful address at Auckland by the assistant manager of the South African Rugby team seems to have caused scarcely a ripple on the smooth complacency of Rugby officialdom in this country. Yet Mr de Villiers raised questions that should long since have been causing the Rugby unions of both countries deep concern—more so in New Zealand than in South Africa, because the game here has to face stronger competition from rival codes and sports. Mr de Villiers spoke before the Auckland match; after it, he would have had still more reason to question whether the game is as good as it was—that is, as a healthy sport worth playing and worth watching. Could any of Mr de Villiers’ questions now be answered in the affirmative, least of all his “key” question: “Is the “ approach by players, administra- “ tors, and public sound and “ healthy? ” This might be put in another way: is the spirit of the game all that it might be? Only those who are wilfully blind to recent trends in the game in this country will think that it is. Rugby football is not, of course, the only international sport in which there has been some decline in the standards of sportsmanship in and about I the game. But New Zealand has a ■ j special interest in preserving all that i is best in Rugby football because. [most of its youngsters play it at school, many continue to play it for years after leaving school, and a large proportion of the population of all ages watch at least the more imDortant games in the calendar.

Some blame the rules for the comparative stodginess of much of our present-day Rugby football at I all levels: and it will be a pity if the present opportunity is not used to obtain agreement between New Zealand and South African renresentatives on anv desirable reforms—nerhaps in the direction, as Dr Craven has suggested, of making possession from scrums less predictable. Their agreement should certainly carry some weight with the International Rugby Board. But

changes in the rules will not, by themselves, transform the game. Australian teams in New Zealand and the British Lions in South Africa have shown that the present rules are not insuperable obstacles to the free and open style of game which is most enjoyed by both players and spectators. The will to play it must be there; and the will can seldom be very strong while everything else in the game is subordinated to the result. The object of all games is to win; and it is right to play hard to win within the letter and the spirit of the rules. But when defeat in a test match is looked upon as a national tragedy and the loss of a trophy as a provincial disaster, the result is clearly given a grossly exaggerated and unhealthy importance, with several disagreeable consequences. First, by putting a premium on tight defence and spoiling play, the game loses much as a spectacle. Second, as spoiling play usually implies a persistent effort to evade the rules, it leads to bad feeling and rough play. Worst of all, perhaps, it encourages spectators to go to matches merely to see their team win rather than to enjoy the skill of either side.

Spoiling tactics and rough and illegal play on the field, excessive partisanship in the stands and on the embankments—these make a I combination fraught with peril for New Zealand’s good name in the: world of sport. Already it has led. | at Lancaster Park and elsewhere, to referees being abused and to visiting players being booed while taking their kicks at goal—demonstrations which should make any person with the instincts of sportsmanship cringe with shame. What can the con-1 j trolling unions and officials do about these things? They could, if they were less preoccupied with records, trophies, and gate takings, set an example to players and public in generous sportsmanship. They could stamp out rough and illegal play They could—and they must —establish that the game and the manner 9nd spirit in which it is played are far more important than the result. And when our players are no longer obsessed with the idea that they must not be beaten, they will play ihe game better than they do now—by all the standards that really matter.