FRAMING THE LAWS

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28553, 5 April 1958, Page 14

FRAMING THE LAWS

Co-ordination With Referees Sought Some co-ordination between the authorities who framed the laws, and the referees, was strongly advocated by several speakers at the annual conference of the New Zea<land Rugby Referees’ Association last evening. One delegate, Mr C, H. Williams, described the present situation as “Gilbertian." Mr Williams said the position had arisen during the day’s business where notes on the laws of the game were at variance with the laws themselves. There had been occasions when delegates were told that the notes were part of the laws and had to be approved, and in another breath were told that although one note said one thing was to apply, instructions had been received from the New Zealand Rugby Union that this note was to be disregarded and a substitute interpretation approved. “I don’t think It is sensible having notes in the law book that should actually be the laws themselves,” he said. Mr Williams’s suggestions were supported by Mr J. P* Fitzpatrick (Wairarapa), who moved the following motion; "That this annual conference express its concern at the continual piecemeal amendments and alterations to the laws of the game and considers that before future amendments to the laws are made there be prior consultations with the referees’ association. This annual conference also recommends that a responsible representative of the referees’ association should attend future meetings of the international board when amendments to the laws of the game are considered.” Delay Suggested Mr F. Parkinson (Manawatu) said he thought the solution to the problem was that rather than have the new laws brought into effect in New Zealand immediately upon their approval by the board. New Zealand should wait for a year before putting the laws into effect—the same as in England. Mr H. Simmonds explained that as the referees’ representative on the New Zealand union’s laws committee. he had seen and commented on suggested amendments to the laws before the board meeting, and that Mr C. S. Hogg, the union’s representative to the board’s conference had taken his views with him to England. “I cannot understand why the New Zealand union sent a man thousands of miles across the sea to England—a man who knows what all this about and who can resolve all our troubles—and that man is not much more than an hour away from Christchurch, and we did not invite him here,” said Mr Parkinson. "I still want to know what constitutes a knock-on from a pass. I am concerned that many of us will go back to our centres not know** ing the full answers,** he said. The notes on • the laws were not prepared by or submitted to the same group who drew the laws up, said Mr Williams A lot of what you are seeing had not been discussed at the meeting attended by Mr Hogg. He would be unable to contribute more to the discussion than what is in the book of laws,*’ said Mr Williams. Fitzpatrick’s motion was lost on a show of hands.