HOLD-UPS IN SCRUMMAGE

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29803, 21 April 1962, Page 18

HOLD-UPS IN SCRUMMAGE

Referee Urges New Law

(N.Z. Press Association) HAMILTON. April 20. A suggestion that the New Zealand L'nion should be urged to ask the International Board in 1964 to revert to a "moderate speed" by a half-back putting the ball into a scrum was made at a conference of the Rugby Referees' in Hamilton today. It was made by Mr B. J. Drake (Canterbury) during a two-hour discussion on the scrummage and relevant laws, following an address by a member of the executive, Mr H. B. Simmons (Wellington). Mr J. O’Brien (Wellington) said it was being advocated that the president of the Wellington Association instruct all members to enforce to the letter the law governing the stance of the hooker paying particular attention to that governing the players of the front row. Real Criticism It was suggested that until such time as that law was enforced to the maximum that no amount of argument or discussion would eliminate the very real criticism of referees from one end of New Zealand to the other, together with criticism from overseas touring players and managers. “Referees are bound by the enforcement of laws which should be readily available to the players." said Mr Drake. “Time and time again when we have a decision we do not like we say let us apply common sense. Certainly. but only within the laws of the game.' He said the New Zealand Union should be urged to ask the International Board in 1964 to revert to a "moderate speed' in the case of the half-back putting the ball into the scrum "The International Board has given us the laws, we have to stick to them.” said Mr Drake. It 15 not f° r the New Zealand Union to say, 'do not follow any particular law.'” Right Perspective The scrum should be viewed m the right perspective, said Mr J Monteith (Dannevirke) The important parts of the scrummage laws were to prevent any team gaining an unfair advantage and to save players getting hurt. The scrum was for the simple purpose of restarting the game. However. it was shrouded with many technicalities

If there is no unfair advantage and if no-one is likely to get hurt, whether or not the binding is correct, and if the ball is put in and it comes out. let the game go on.” said Mr Monteith.

I think we are overdoing it. We do not spend the same time on the line-out. why should the half-back putting the ball in not be allowed to put it in at a peed to suit his hooker? A wing three-quarter can do that when throwing the ball into the line-out.”

Mr Simmons said that 37 associations were represented and at least half the delegates had spoken. The percentage of agreement in principle would be about 30-30-30. "It shows that trying to get uniformity on this particular aspect is pretty hopeless." he said. “I think that the people who framed this law know that it is not satisfactory." The worst feature, he said, was the delay and consequent annoyance to players and spectators in getting the ball into the scrum.

“If the players are not eotng to play to the laws. We should say the laws are made for 15 players on each side, not for two players to stop all the others having a good, enioyable game."