Rough Rugby

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31124, 29 July 1966, Page 12

Rough Rugby

Sir, —I wish to support the stand taken by R. T. Brittenden in condemning the brutality openly displayed in recent Rugby games. Perhaps sucn open displays derive from the approval given by the general public to the “softening up” tactics used by the All Black front row against the Springboks in the test played at Lancaster Park in 1956. Especially welcome are Mr Brittenden’s comments deploring the over-organisation of junior Rugby and the zealously partisan support that goes with it. We are in danger of investing an enjoyable game with far too much seriousness and of teaching a generation of small boys that winning a

game is more important than playing it for enjoyment and relaxation.—Yours, etc., JOHN PANCKHURST. July 28, 1966.

Sir,—ln condoning obstructive tactics employed by New Zealand, and, no doubt, other footballers, your contributor, I. J. D. Hall, to whose knowledge of the technicalities one naturally defers, appears to say, in effect, that it is all right according to the rules so long as no “overt” act of obstruction is committed; so long, that is, as you don’t actually move to get in an opponent’s way, even if you stand with arms outstretched. Yet the intention to obstruct can be perfectly clear; and if you know that some man mountain of a forward is, by deliberate immobility—“mute of malice,” so to speak—not giving you a clear run to the ball, you are quite likely, on the spur of the moment, to do something slightly intemperate. So the trouble starts. Perhaps, recalling those rather irreverent “wisecracks” of A. H. Clough, “Do not obstruct; unless it pays to do so in less obvious ways.”— Yours, etc., ILAM. July 28, 1966.

Sir, —If Mr Brittenden is so genuine in his belief concerning foul Rugby, why does he not name offending players? For example, “Smith deliberately kicked Jones in the head,” or “Brown shoved his knee into Grey’s groin.” Or is he not sure enough of his facts (and his eye sight) that he will tempt a libel case? I wonder, also, how many of your grouching correspondents are disgruntled “Poms," who don’t like being beaten by “colonials.” Further, why did not your paper report Teller's after-match remark, “Thank you for the manner in which you booed Stuart Wil son when he took that vital conversion today.” The Well ington “Evening Post” reported it (and Teller's “toast” to the referee) but those who saw the game and the television review will concede how incorrect and ill-mannered Telfer’s stateriient was. One now wonders how much credence should be put on his other remarks.—Yours, etc., RASTUS.

July 27, 1966. [lt would be neither fair nor wise for reporters to pronounce judgment on individual players, as the corres pondent proposes. It would be unfair because, for every foul committed in the open there are probably a dozen or more in the tight, where even the referee may have difficulty in detecting the offender; and the overt breach is all too often provoked by a concealed one. It would be unwise because no legal privilege attaches to newspaper reports, and newspapers have found from bitter experience that in any legal proceedings players are extremely - reluctant to testify against fellowplayers. In any case, it is the referee’s duty to police the game, not the reporter’s.— Ed., “The Press.”]

Sir,—These boys who come to our country are on a goodwill visit to play sport. Yet the manager of the French team said at New Plymouth that if they had any more injuries they would not be able to complete the tour. At Wellington the manager of the Australian team said some of their best players were out for the tour with injuries. As for our All Blacks being tough, what about the officials visiting their dressing-rooms and seeing protective material under their jerseys?—Yours, etc., TWO-EYED KIWI. July 28, 1966.

Sir, —I endorse the remarks of Mr Brittenden on the rough Rugby. Apparently the Canterbury Rugby Union at its last meeting did not mention

anything about rough play, and they definitely know it is there. If they want to keep the game clean they could back the referees more, but the referees will not order the players off because the union would not back them up. Perhaps the referees do not see a lot of the illegal play as their job is to follow the ball, and players often get on the blind side of the referee. 1 suggest a few ideas which would take most of the dirt out of the game and would make it worth looking at. The first player to offend, award a try against his side. This would make them think twice. If caught using fists, fit boxing gloves for the rest of the game. For putting in unnecessary boot, take their boots off.—Yours, etc., CLEAN RUGBY. July 25, 1966.