Penalties, Not Platitudes Needed From Rugby Union

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28906, 28 May 1959, Page 16

Penalties, Not Platitudes Needed From Rugby Union

TF the Rugby public of Canterx bury needed any further convincing that the management committee of the Canterbury Rugby Union was determined to be blind on the question of rough play, the discussion on Tuesday evening provided ample evidence. Mr C. H. McPhail once again expressed the self-righteous attitude of the committee on this question by attacking “The Press” for reporting incidents seen by its Rugby writers. Some day, the committee may get to grips with the situation instead of indulging in the conceit of imagining it is doing its duty. Dangerous Surely It does not require a player to be killed to convince some administrators that there is a job to be done. There have been serious injuries through rough play in the last two years Good fortune, rather than the Rugby Union, has prevented fatal injury. Perhaps if Mr MePhail took the trouble to speak to senior players personally, he would also come to the conclusion, as ‘The Press” has done, that the situation is distinctly dangerous. Rugby writers from “The Press” have spoken to dozens of senior and representative players

this season, and last. There is not one of them who has not said the game has deteriorated, that apart from incidents observed from the sideline—and reported—foul play is going on in the rucks and line-outs in match after match. These are the incidents which, no doubt, lead to the others which are seen by reporlers and spectators, but not by Mr McPhail. Familiar Mr McPhail said that one would assume, from the newspaper reports, that inquiries (into order-ings-off) were new. “They have been going on for years,” he said. Is it not then time that Mr McPhail, and the rest of the committee, increased the penalties for such offences? There is no suggestion of that from the committee, but it is the only action it can take to rid a fine game of a deplorable feature. It consistently leaves its referees in an invidious position, while it concentrates on the newspapers. Mr McPhail announced that there was a vast difference between hard play, rough play and foul play. It is comforting to find that Mr McPhail acknowledges there is such a thing as foul play.

Reports of earlier committee discussions* suggested the opposite. After delivering his speech, Mr McPhail asked the referee mentioned in a report in “The Press” last Monday (Mr <B. J. Drake) whether the report on incidents in a senior match at Rugby Park was ‘‘a grossly misreported article.” Mr Drake did not answer the question, but spoke of two players who “got around each other.” They were, Mr Drake said “protesting” and he broke it up. The incident was clearly seen by a reporter from “The Press.” He saw two players exchanging blows while Mr Drake had his back turned; he saw them continuing to exchange punches while Mr Drake came up to them; he saw Mr Drake part them and speak to them; and he saw the players then shake hands. He reported the facts. He did not imagine them. Example Only when senior players set an example to junior and younger ones, will Rugby be played properly. The management committee’s duties do not end with arranging competitions and representative fixtures. Severe penalties for rough (and foul) play are needed. The newspapers cannot administer them.