Rough Rugby

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31128, 3 August 1966, Page 16

Rough Rugby

Sir, —I cannot remember when your newspaper last printed so many boringly repetitive letters on the same I am sure you agree that letters to the editor must pursue an argument or offer a good personal gripe. Otherwise, they make very dull reading. May I, therefore, ask who is arguing in favour of rough Rugby? As for the case against, your correspondents are merely echoing Messrs Brittenden and Hall—sometimes, unfortunately, with an attempt at humour. So please apply the closure—after printing my letter, of course.—Yours, etc., G. V. ORANGE. August 2, 1966.

Sir,—l feel that F. P. Fothergill and “Open Rugby” hit the jackpot New Zealand

power Rugby, win-at-all-costs, is a dour touch-line game. In the Canterbury-Lions match, 113 line-outs, 30 or more scrums (nearly all collapsing several times); there was no time left to score tries after penalties, loose mauls, etc. But 16 fit and vigorous young men were pitted against each other well over 140 times in 80 minutes. Only fireworks could be expected. They have been overplayed, too, I think. , Reintroduce the bounce-into-touch rule, which, I am convinced, our Rugby Moguls abhor solely because it would end power Rugby as we know it today. Investigate the ratio of soccer to Rugby in schools, now to yesteryear, and the writing will be shown on the wall. Twenty thousand pound gates to watch a fiveeighths kick a game away will be hard to get —Yours, etc., H. G. SMITH. August 2, 1966.

Sir,—“The Press’s” admirable vision of clean Rugby is properly steamed up by this Lions’ tour. The views of Tom Pearce are summarily dismissed as “inflammatory,” though they are probably correct, for the Lions are not the crusading spirits that you fondly imagine. There is more rough play in the Lions' matches (a) than in other first-class fixtures, (b) than there was against the Springboks just last season. This Lions’ team is not a victimised minority. It tends to panic and blow its top. In the Otago match the biggest open brawl I have ever seen erupted before half-time when the Lions were down 0-11 through Otago’s back play. CampbellLamerton could clearly be heard imploring his men to calm down. If rough play is being incited throughout grade Rugby from international example, you must recognise that the Lions are causing it. Otherwise you must look for the causes elsewhere.—Yours, etc., D. A. KERR. August 2, 1966. Sir,—The many incidents of dirty play which are bringing so much discredit to the game must make the controllers of Rugby realise that this situation has been brought about by our stupid scrum formation. It is clearly evident to followers of the game that the trouble is caused by the mauling frontrow men, and the referee and spectators see only a fraction of what goes on. The New Zealand authorities have good reason now to demand a reversion to the 2-3-2 scrum to eliminate foul play. This would improve the game in other ways, too, as older players are well aware. When the older formation was outlawed by the International Rugby Board in the late twenties the bone of contention was the positional play of the wing-forward. If that is the only obstacle now, we could do without him altogether, or use him as an extra fly-half back.—Yours, etc., L. W. WOOD.

August 1, 1966. Sir, —My comment: “Another referee has fallen down on his job.” As a player, not the instigator of the trouble, L along with the aggressor received three weeks’ disqualification. I paid by far the biggest price as I was to be nominated for the South Island and was tipped by the papers to tour Australia with the 1920 All Blacks. With 20 years as an active player, two years overseas while on active service during World War I, and 11 years after returning to New Zealand of senior and representative Rugby, I enjoyed every minute of the

games I played in without ever being warned before or after this incident. The referee remained a personal friend and I never held anything against the South Canterbury Rugby Union, which had to uphold the referee. I can only say: put them on the bank. I applaud the outspoken comments of your sports writer. —Yours, etc., J.H.B. July 31, 1966.

Sir, —I would not say that fists were never used in United Kingdom Rugby of 40 years ago. But if the user were seen, and warned, and seen to do it again—off he went, as happened sadly at Twickenham in 1924 with a neutral referee. The writer happened to see it all very clearly. Nowadays it is not a question of rough Rugby, but of dirty Rugby—and it’s up to the referees. That is what they are there for, not to appeal to the captains.—Yours, etc., OLD-TIMER. August 2, 1966.

Sir,— “Roughby”—vide your General News items—was a nice verbal up-and-under. “Roughby-Toughby sat on a wall; Roughby Toughby had a great fail. . . .” Perhaps. The New Zealand Rugby Union professes to back up their referees. It seems an odd way of doing it, of demonstrating their confidence, to haul a referee before a committee in order to justify his action in sending some recalcitrant player off the field. This can hardly be the best way of encouraging decisive action on the part of referees. Still, there is more to it than the players and referees. There are plenty of spectators whose contribution to the best interests of the game are nil, if not less.—Yours, etc., ILAM. August 2, 1966.

Sir, —At last we have one man who is not afraid to place the blame for rough play where it belongs: on the Lions. It makes one feel sick to see so many rush into print and blame our boys for every bit of dirt that is dished out. Certainly some of our boys will punch back. Who would not? No-one wants dirty play, but I would like to see some of these so-called fans stand and turn the other cheek if a huge member of the Lions team walked up and belted them in the face. It disgusts me to see so many so-called “Kiwis” blacken their own team when it should be the other way round. Are they afraid of the truth or just blind? Congratulations to Mr Pearce for his open remarks. We want clean play and he might get it.—Yours, etc. * TRUE KIWI. August 2, 1966.

Sir, —Last night on television we watched a documentary on the ghastly war in Vietnam. As well as this tragedy we have in the world today devastating earthquakes and hurricanes, floods and famine! And still we get all this “hoohaa” about a hard, willing “game” of Rugby! I ask you! Wouldn’t it make you sick?— Yours, etc., MUM. August 2, 1966.

Sir, —I have had enough, cannot take any more. Roll in, gentle cricket. Bring with you the always interesting voice of Jim Reid, the cream-flan-nelled gentleman, with his “fine legs” and “maiden overs.”—Yours, etc., KAYE. August 2,1966.