RUGBY Remit Favouring 2-3-2 Scrum Defeated 78-20

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30196, 30 July 1963, Page 20

RUGBY Remit Favouring 2-3-2 Scrum Defeated 78-20

(From Our Own Reporter) WELLINGTON, July 29. Claims put forward by supporters of the 2-3-2 scrum that under the present 3-4-1 scrum Rugby was losing public support were denied strenuously by Mr T. H. Pearce and Mr T. C. Morrison at a special meeting of the New Zealand Rugby Union to discuss suggested changes to the Rugby Law, held in Wellington today.

After a debate lasting more than an hour, in which the chief protagonists were Mr W. S. Bramwell (Hawke’s Bay) and Mr G. C. Grace (Taranaki) for the 2-3-2 scrum, and Mr Pearce in opposition, a motion by Hawke’s Bay that the 2-3-2 scrum be reverted to was lost by 78 votes to 20.

Hawke's Bay. Taranaki, Counties, West Coast, and Buller were the unions that voted in favour of the 2-3-2 scrum. Mr Bramwell said he con-

sidered the remit on the 2-3-2 scrum was the most important before the meeting. From everywhere in New Zealand there were complaints about modern Rugby. Outlining the advantage of the 2-3-2 scrum, he said it brought back uncertainty of possession; gave cleaner booking and gave more opportunities for back play. Under the 3-4-1 scrum Rugby had become a jerky, disconnected game in which the scrum and the ensuing penalties and infringements were the dominant features rather than running and passing by the backs. “The present scrum rules are not in the publics or the players’ favour and are leading to a lessening of public interest in Rugby." Brightening the Game Mr Grace said that the spectators should not be ignored. “If we do not try to brighten the game we will soon be providing grounds tor other sports." 1

“The 3-4-1 scrum is clumsy, unscientific, and caters only for big men and has developed a defensive complex leading to side-line Rugby,” said Mr Grace.

Mr Grace then went on at some length to compare the two scrums. Asked by the chairman (Mr H. A. McPhee) if he had nearly finished, Mr Grace said he hoped the chairman would not disregard the standing of the Taranaki union by asking him to stop. Case for 3-4-1 When Mr Grace finished 10 minutes later. Mr Pearce put the case for the 3-4-1 scrum. He said the 2-3-2 scrum was not the panacea for all Rugby ills. The play in the days of the 2-3-2 was not as open as was often said. “Why is there this consistent writing down of Rugby?” he asked. "Our game is good at present. Most of the unions are reporting better gates. “We have to take the 3-4-1 scrum and make it work. There is clear evidence that good Rugby can be produced with the present scrum.” Mr Morrison (chairman of toe executive council) said

that Rugby was in good heart and it upset him to hear continual criticism of the game.

“The rules have been altered recently to help speed up the game—and to pander to inefficiency. If the spoilers can be ruled out, that is all that is needed.

“We should be working for Rugby. If certain other codes are getting more support, let them. They are entitled to it.”

A new hooking rule, which delegates were assured would produce quicker and cleaner hooking, also was passed unanimously. The proposed rule requires “the feet of the players in the front row must be so placed to allow a clear tunnel. No foot may be advanced forward of the line of feet or placed nearer the mouth of the tunnel in toe normal position.” Mr C. A. BLazey (Canterbury) said the rule had been tried in several provincial gomes last season with considerable success. In 500 scrums toe ball had gone in at the first attempt in 76 per cent, of the scrums. Under toe existing tews the percentage of first attempts was about 60.

Delegates also approved the application of toe advantage law to the line-outs when toe ball was not thrown in straight or when there was a knock-on. A remit from Counties that the advantage law should apply to all phases of the game was defeated. Mr Pearce said that it would throw too big a burden on the judgment of tot referee. An Auckland remit that there would not be an infringement when a player unintentionally knocked •on the bail! and reoevored it from a pass was approved. Mr H. C. Blazey (Canterbury) asked if that meant that a player could unintentionally knock-on the ball several times in trying to catch the ball and still not infringe. He was told the proposed rule would allow that. A voice: So we are going to have juggling acts now. Other remits passed were:— Replacements to be allowed in all matches. From a penality all restrictions on a kicker playing the ball first aifter he had kicked it should be eliminated. A penalty to be limited tn one of 10 yards in front of the mark and not a series of 16 yards. Mr H. Simmons, a referee’s delegate, said the present record under the existing rule was a 70 yards advance from where toe first penalty was awarded