British Comment On Rugby Law Changes

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28530, 8 March 1958, Page 5

British Comment On Rugby Law Changes

VVHEN the changes in the laws of Rugby were announced recently by the International Rugby Board, most sports writers in New Zealand, in commenting on the alterations, devoted most space to laws which New Zealand has been seeking to alter for some time—the unintentional knock-on and the tackled ball. In three of England’s leading newspapers, however, the alterations to the laws governing rough and illegal play commanded the most attention. The “Daily Telegraph” devoted most of a leading article to these amendments and leading articles in “The Times” and the “Manchester Guardian,” while reviewing most of the major changes, also put emphasis on illegalities and rough play. Rough Play While these three leading articles were in complete agreement on the need for firm action against players who resort to unfair and dirty play, two of them differed on the latitude allowed wing forwards. The “Daily Telegraph” said there was “a notable absence of real restraint” on wing forwards and the “Manchester Guardian” said the alterations were clearly intended to “curb the activities of wing forwards.” There were also varying opinions on several other changes. The “Manchester Guar-

dian” said that it was a pity that the board had allowed the recoverable knock-on, for that favoured the inefficient who could not catch or control the ball properly. “It is, moreover, asking a lot of referees to decide when control is kept or lost,” said the article. “The” Times” held that the alteration to this law now allowed the “present unreasonable penalising for a knock-on which is not one in the true meaning of the term” to be abolished. On the question of rough and unfair play, ' xiie Times” had this to say:— “Those who legislate for this most strenuous code have an unenviable job. Anything that leads to hearing the whistle more often—and it is already an inescapable nuisance—gets them into trouble. But their duty is to face, squarely, two difficulties inherent in the game. The first is that roughness, in the sense of hard give and take with the whole body, is the salt of bringing the other man down or Rugby; but to go all out in spoiling his tactics must be kept within sporting limits. Here, the borderline depends only partly on the rules. Clean football will never be played, however ingenious the law-makers, except by clean players. The second difficulty arises from the variety of combinations and manoeuvres that have grown up over the years. A scrummage is, for instance. a key point in testing the strength of a team. But noone has yet made it quite proof against time-wasting or a lack of natural sportsmanship. The Board has done its best and its success will be measured by the spirit in which its decisions are carried out.”