Rough Rugby

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31121, 26 July 1966, Page 16

Rough Rugby

Sir, —There is no doubt that the British Isles Rugby team came to this side of the world intending to play sparkling, open Rugby, as their predecessors have always done. Their disappointment must be very great. Rugby fans here are getting what they have asked for during the last 20 years: punishing forward play, with the backs hurriedly kicking for the touch-lines. No more jinky runs. What tricky little back is going to try any capers for the crowd to acclaim when there are three 16-stone loose forwards coming off the side of the scrum at him, heads down with the velocity of a missile to Mars? These forwards are trained to beat the referee and also to crush the living lights out of any back who dares to touch any fairly won ball. Yes; put it out, my boy, and woe betide you if you cannot. Let the forwards maul or brawl in the line-outs, with or without their pants. The crowd love it—Yours, etc., A.F.F. July 25, 1966.

Sir, —Power to your crusade against the savagery in Rugby! The McFadyean incident, and the other when the “shock troops” flattened two Lions in the one ambush, were an utter disgrace. I know these things are never one-sided, but I have an uneasy feeling that we started it—a long time ago. Who do Mr Blazey and Clem McPhail think they are fooling? And Mr Morrison? The spectators, all 45,000 of them, are at least threatened with intelligence.—Yours, etc., BRUTUS. July 25, 1966.

Sir, —So Mr O’Brien thinks our Canterbury players should have “turned the other cheek.” Of course he would not see our half-back viciously 'struck across the mouth with ! the edge of an open hand, our second five-eighths chased in the open by a brave Lion with flying fists, or arms wrapped round our forwards to stop them jumping in the line-outs, or hard dumping in tackles over the side-lines. Most of the spectators agreed the Lions deserved their win

and applauded their winning score, but we hate squealers. If Mr O’Brien has had enough he could take a plane home and he would not be missed as a coach. —Yours, etc.. No. 4 STAND. July 25, 1966. Sir, —At the CanterburyLions match on Saturday I missed the professionalism of Emma Peel in the hand-chop-ping (imitation karate, presumably), knee-work and stiffarm tackling on display. Indeed, for more than aesthetic reasons I should have enjoyed seeing Emma in a scarlet jersey and white shorts. Propping only two scrums (changing position once) she would have ended the nonsense [there; then she could have I roamed and shown the relai fives of the choppers and [Stiff-arm boys that it requires only refinement of the present tactics to kill a man.—Yours, etc., STEED. July 25, 1966. Sir, —I commend your Sports Editor’s comments in today’s issue, but he did not go far enough. Nor did he get to the real root of the very dirty Rugby being served up at present. Referees are most reluctant to order players off because they do not get the support of the Rugby Union. He writes in a letter and has to appear himself at the meeting and there is an inquisition. If, without much ado, the union accepted the referee’s explanation and then summarily suspended the player for six months, and took away any prospect of his bea representative of his province or New Zealand, something would be accomplished. I am of the opinion, however, that the union would be afraid to do this because one of their best players (and these are not all the clean potatoes when rough play is around) might then not be available to help win the Ranfury Shield or beat the Lions in a test.—Yours, etc., DO IT NOW. July 25, 1966.

Sir, —Congratulations to Mr O’Brien, the Lions manager, for having the intestinal fortitude to express himself so forcefully on the rough tactics adopted in New Zealand Rugby as a whole. Such must have been the thoughts of many previous visitors to this country who have refrained from commenting for the sake of diplomacy. As one who played the game, in addition to boxing, I am disgusted at this strong-arm approach to what is termed “sport,” and I am sure these must be the thoughts of all the many sane Kiwis. Let us have a sterner approach by the referees who, at all times, should be given much more support by the various unions, and Mr Morrison, than has been the case in the past.—Yours, etc., KIWI. July 24, 1966.

Sir, —I am disgusted. What is Rugby coming to? As a keen Rugby player myself, I went to Lancaster Park anticipating, with excitement, a great game of Rugby between two fine teams. I was sadly disappointed. Fighting broke out within minutes and the boot was applied all too readily to the opposition and the ball. Kicking contests became commonplace, with mauls all too vicious. The result was a dull

and false Interpretation o Rugby. The players them selves were not completely ti blame; nor the referee. Tht crowd was equally viciou with its calls for "blood.” “01 Ho, that was a good one,” ant “Give ’im one back,” to namt only a few. Worse still! Can terbury was always right penalties against Canterbury were branded illegal and th< successes of the Lions took ; poor second place to those o: Canterbury. Parochial crowd: are not sportsmanlike.— Yours, etc., RAVEN. July 23, 1966.

Sir, —As an Otago man and not a supporter of Canterbury, I would protest at the statements made by the Lions manager, Mr D. J. O’Brien, on rough or illegal tactics. At the game here on Saturday it was definitely the visitors who started the rough play, and for no apparent reason. Never before has there been a tour of New Zealand where rough play has been so prominent It started in the very first game in Southland. Instead of the referees trying to impress, on the chance of being selected for a test they should, after a first warning put the man off and then we might see cleaner Rugby. If these tactics were used in club Rugby there would be no need for internationals to be so punished.—Yours, etc., RUGBY-LOVER. July 25, 1966.