System Of Interpreting Rugby Laws Could Be Much Improved

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28559, 12 April 1958, Page 5

System Of Interpreting Rugby Laws Could Be Much Improved

TT became quite apparent at the annual conference of the New Zealand Rugby Referees’ Association that a better method interpreting new Rugby laws is very necessary. For 12J hours referees debated 22 amendments to 37 laws, but this time could have been cut almost in half. Delegates could have gained a more lucid conception of the intentions of the new laws had they approached the amendments in a practical rather than a technical or legal way. The business might not have run down in the scheduled time had the conference not sat until 11.45 p.m. on Good Friday, by which time 12 of the amendments had been disposed of. Six of the nine hours on Good Friday were devoted to the scrummaging and knock-on laws. Not Thorough It was not entirely the fault of the delegates. Some of the blame belonged to the International Rugby Board which, in approving nine closely-typed foolscap pages of notes on the laws, did not do a sufficiently thorough job. Several of the notes —which, delegates were told, were part of the laws and not merely for guidance—conflicted sharply with the laws themselves, and some important things were left unsaid. When the laws committee of the international board concluded its meeting, it was left to different members to draw up a draft report on interpretations. Two of these were Dr. D. H. Craven (South Africa) and Mr P. Hogan (Ireland). Their reports went before the board's drafting committee before being approved. When this approval was given, neither the South African nor New Zealand delegate was present. This meant that Mr C. S. Hogg (New Zealand) was unable to be present when the final draft was considered by the board and, therefore, unable to enlighten referees on many of the matters discussed at the second meeting.

All the referees now have are are the notes approved by the board, and these, in some cases, are far from satisfactory explanations of the laws. Knock-on Two of the notes which caused a variance of opinion at the referees’ meeting, were those relating to the advantage Haw as applied to scrums, and the knock-on law. The note on the advantage law as it applies to Law 10 (15) was that referees should note that the advantage law.now applied to every phase of play except the kick-off and throw-m from touch. It was asked whether the advantage law would apply to the scrum, and this was debated for nearly an hour before it was decided that the advantage applied from the moment the ball left the half-back’s hands. A later resolution nullified this ruling and the New Zealand union was asked to give a decision. The knock-out law provides for the unintentional and recoverable knock-on by a player from a kick or pass. Discussion was

mainly on the allowable distance in which the ball might be knocked-on. Key Words The law itself is simple. It says: “. . . a movement of the ball in the player’s grasp which is in the nature of a steadying or readjustment of the ball within his possession without loss of control, is not a knock-on.” The important words are “steadying or readjustment,” and had referees considered only these words the correct interpretation would have been made in a few minutes. Unfortunately many of them seized upon the words “grasp,” “possession” and “control” and while arguing on them, completely forgot the operative words which obviously give the intentions of the international board. But the note, on the knock-on did not help the situation either for in stating that providing a player “does not lose effective control” of the ball it is not a knock-oil, it conflicted with the law which said “a steadying or readjustment.” , Oncp again this conflict produced arguments and they were not resolved until the very end of the conference when, in answering a question on the interpretation, the chairman (Mr A. C. Swan) showed delegates clearly that what was intended by the board was a very slight

fumble, nb more than “a steadying, or readjustment” of the ball. Although the scrummage took three hours to interpret—it is a very complicated law—this was no fault of Mr H. 'Simmonds, who in his explanations and drawings arid answers to questions, proved he had put into his subject a lot of thought and effort. That he was able to do so was a triumph, for in the three-hour discussion he was often side-tracked. At this conference the referees decided on their interpretations. The New Zealand union’s laws committee has .yet to announce its decisions. When it does, there will be uniformity of interpretations throughout New Zealand. Uniformity Referees in other countries will probably have similar difficulties, and their unions may decide upon slightly different interpretations from those to be enforced in New Zealand.

This was acknowledge by several delegates to the conference when they agreed with “The Press” that uniformity of interpretation would best be obtained through an international meeting of referees. Another opinion offered by some delegates was that if notes on the laws were intended to be the laws, they should be written into the laws. Had this been done, the referees would have had a far easier time than they had.