Rough Rugby

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31125, 30 July 1966, Page 14

Rough Rugby

Sir, —Successful representative Rugby forward play demands brawn and beef but few brains. The average New Zealand forward is therefore a simple (often rustic) soul, whose response to stress is usually a display of aggression rather than intellectual activity. The administrators and coaches are cast in the same mould, and see themselves in the important role of maintaining their precarious national supremacy which means so much to so many. They therefore dictate the policy of bruising forward play and incessant kicking from the scrum because they know this produces results. We, the public, have the remedy to this in our own hands. We should cease to yield to mob hysteria and stay at home and use our time to better advantage.—Yours, etc., D. R. HAY. July 28, 1966.

Sir,—Congratulations to D. A. Kerr and his logical outlook. As a mere female Rugby fan, I should imagine that now the public hysteria has mounted to fever pitch, all the moaning nom-de-plumers will stay away in indignation from Lancaster Park, and so give some of us more room on the bank. Mind you, we shall miss some of them with their appalling manners, especially towards the female Rugby fans. It is a pity we really didn’t see a decent “setto” in last Saturday’s game. It might have livened things up a bit, and at least provided some entertainment.—Yours, etc., J. B. HERN. July 29, 1966. Sir,—lt must have been, I think, in 1930 that we had quite a spate of advance journalism about two halfbacks named Spong and Sobey. These were strange and intriguing names, and they quickly caught the public interest and we were all looking forward with the greatest pleasure to seeing these two players in action; but it was mentioned to me by someone who either was, or wished to appear to be, “in the know,” that this combination would be broken up very early in the tour. And it was—in the first “game”! Could this have been pure coincidence and mischance? Mark you, they are strange masochistic types, these Lions. I read that one of them has broken his arm, and another has broken two ribs, while a third has gone so far as to allow his judgment to be impaired by the fact that his nose was broken.—Yours, etc., STRETCHER-BEARER. July 28, 1966.

Sir, —Mr O’Brien, the Lions manager, should be congratulated for his good work in trying to keep Rugby inci-dent-free. Since coming to this country the Lions have encountered two good clean games (Wellington and the first test). In my opinion the Lions came to New Zealand to play good, open football and must be disappointed with the opposition they have met. Lancaster Park last Saturday was a disgusting exhibition of bad sportsmanship by both the Canterbury team and supoorters. In future games I hope the Lions get a better spin than they have so far received.—Yours, etc., SPORTS-LOVER. July 26, 1966.

Sir,—lf we were to treat this as a “storm in a teacup,” as one correspondent describes it, we miss our cue,

and the crisis next time may be less recognisable. Rugby games, and several other recent issues, are bringing us all to the point where we must examine national attitudes, admit their shortcomings, and grow up; recognise among other things, that “foreigners” (Japanese, British, Jugosla-’s or anyone else) are at least as likeable and worth listening to as we are—whether or not they are “tough.” The examination in maturity has been handed to us by “The Times” correspondent; any desire to criticise or dispute his statements would merely prove their truth. A mere female opinion is that New Zealand Rugby will commit a fast and painful suicide if more intelligent sporting characteristics are not self-injected. We are “opening up” in generosity and tolerance in other fields, a far cry, incidentally, from being “cissies.”—Yours, etc., PINK GIN. July 29, 1966.

Sir,—Surely D. A. Kerr does not suggest that the British Isles team of 1963 was responsible for the appendicitis and boils of two of the then All Blacks. This is a truly Alice-in-Wonder-land approach. “Nothing New” is apt and delightful, but even he, I am sure, would draw the line at boils. —Yours, etc., THE GAME’S THE THING. July 28, 1966.

Sir, —I support your sports reporter in having the courage to inform the public of what is going on in a sport which I played until I was 37. The only games that interest me now are the secondary schools and under-weight grades. Coaches of these under-weight grades appear to forget they are dealing with boys, and such expressions as “Knuckle him,” and “Drop the little bastard,” are not helping the club or the union. At a recent game three mothers remarked, “This is my boy's last game.” One of the boys was punched in the mouth with a closed fist and the ball was at least 10ft away and loose. The union has done much to develop our youngsters to become men. The referees also deserve credit, but they cannot see all that goes on. It is a shame to see a great game going down the drain because officials see only what they want to see.—Yours, etc., HALF-BACK 1918. July 28, 1966.