Rough Rugby

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32640, 23 June 1971, Page 18

Rough Rugby

Sir,—The New Zealand se-lector-coach says: “the Canterbury forwards rightfully adopted the attitude of rucking the man off the ball.” 1 should think the rule says ruck the ball if it is playable and can be seen, not ruck a man’s body, head or any other part of the anatomy that happens to be hanging about, or climbing six high on a pile of humanity. If you publish this rule it might save some bloke from being permanently crippled—providing, of course, the referees are strong enough to take the appropriate steps, backed solidly by the Rugby Union.—Yours, etc.,

L. C. WOOD. June 22, 1971-

Sir,—So the horizontal sportsmen who have watched their sport on telly since the last overseas team was here are at it again- They visit Lancaster Park only when they feel the social occasion deserves their presence, and their knowledge of Rugby could be written on the back of a stamp with a blunt carPeter's pencil. Anyone who follows the game saw that most of the trouble started with the Lions tactics of jer-sey-pulling, entering our side of the rucks, and lying on the tackled ball. A further problem was weak refereeing; a stronger man in charge would have seen that the first punch was the last one. .1 deplore rough play as much as anyone but strongly resent Canterbury taking all the blame. It always takes two to make a fight What about the overseas writers ceasing their extravagent squealing? There are very few angels in the Lions, either.—Yours etc., BRUN BARRY. June 22, 1971.

Sir,—To oversimplify somewhat, we seem to have settled for referee’s justice in the open and natural justice in the tight. Last year you reported a perfect example of these two areas touching. According to the report a Canterbury player in a North Island game went round the scrum off-side and was promptly knocked down. At the same moment the referee blew his whistle for the offside. It is a nice point here as to who should apologise to whom over the prostrate figure. For years Mr R. T. Brittenden has written against rough Rugby. He has as much chance as the cannibal in the song who preached that “eating people is Wrong.” R.T.B. will certainly never figure in an Honours List “for his services to New Zealand Rugby,”—Yours, etc., J. DUGDALE. June 22, 1971.

Sir,—lmpassioned, highly exaggerated commentaries by many Rugby reporters on Saturday’s game have paved

the way not only for a cleanup of Rugby, but also for a close look Into licence allowed to the press.—Yours, etc., J. D. F. WHITE. June 22, 1971. Sir,—Every excuse in creation was put forward by the critics for losing the match on Saturday, and every fault possible was heaved on to the Lions. Why not be good sports and admit it? The Lions are just too good. To kick one of them when lying on the ground when the end came was just plain rotten, and I think the guilty party should be suspended.—Yours, etc., R. DAVIS. June 21, 1971.

Sir,—When Mr I. M. H. Vodanovich was coaching the All Blacks in South Africa he was named “Ivan the Terrible.” It may prove apt The Canterbury-Lions game provided many instances of unlicensed thuggery. If Mr Vodanovich’s recent statements are correct, we shall have licensed thuggery for the first test. He has said that the All Blacks will take their own measures if the Lions do not get off the ball quickly enough. One assumes there will be a referee in charge of the test match who will apply the laws correctly without the physical assistance of the All Black vigilantes. Already by his inflammatory statement about a possible “Passchendaele,” Mr Vodanovich has created a sour atmosphere for the first test. Perhaps to achieve some sort of Rugby sanity the second test should be moved to the serenity of Westport rather than have Lancaster Park fulfil its usual role as an arena.—-Yours, etc., IJ.D.H. June 22, 1971.

Sir,—l watched the Canterbury versus British Isles game on Saturday and again on television. While I felt the fighting was uncalled for, I do not think it was nearly as bad enough to warrant the outcry that has come because of it Furthermore, I cannot see why Canterbury has been given the blame. I saw just as many Lions fighting as I did Canterbury players fighting, and yet people deplore the Canterbury team’s vicious attitude while being careful not to blame either team. Let’s face it: it was a tough game and if it must be considered the “black sheep” game of the tour, it is only because the others were so purely white. It does take two to make a fight.—Yours, etc., P.D.L. June 22. 1971.

Sir,—The British sports writers are traditionally the most biased reporters in the world. In every tour the Lions make to this country, reports are sent back to the United Kingdom condemning some aspect of New Zealand Rugby. This is fine, if the criticism is fair, but time and time again only the effect of the skirmishes in various games is reported. Let’s look at the cause. In the United Kingdom the players seem to be allowed to kill the ball in the rucks by lying on it. In New Zealand they are not. Some effort must be made to roll away from the ball. While in the United Kingdom the All Blacks have had to adapt to certain interpretations of the law surely the Lions can do the same in this country. Until the illegalities caused by the Lions forwards are stamped ■ out, then there will, I fear, be dark days ahead for them-—Yours, etc., C.B. June 22, 1971. Sir,—Jf yesterday’s game of Rugby.is how the Canterbury side is going to play the game it does not say much for the province. It is time all those putting the dirt in were disqualified for the rest of the season. I was glad to see the Lions win and only hope they will not think too badly of such a nice place

after what their game against Canterbury was like. Good luck, Lions. I will cheer them all the way.—Yours, etc.,

ASHAMED CANTAB ARIAN. June 20, 1971.

Sir,—One of our New Zealand selectors has likened the first test to a First World War battle. I thought it was to be a football game, but it justifies at least two of the players chosen. It seems, for our future All Blacks, the local boxing schools will supply our needs.—Yours, etc., FOOTBALL’S THE CAPER. June 21, 1971.

Sir, —I congratulate the Mayor on his statement in “The Press" this morning. It is pleasing that our Mayor has the guts to speak out on this subject. This is the direct opposite of the Rugby Union heads, who too often issue statements whitewashing the rough play so prevalent in Rugby football. I hate to think what will happen if the Springboks ever come to New Zealand again. Talk about international tours creating good will and friendship—this is utter nonsense. Unfortunately it appears that the referees are scared of sending offenders off the field <n case they are penalised by the Rugby Unions by not being allocated further international games.—Yours, etc., EX-RED AND BLACK. June 21, 1971.

Sir,—How does one really go about conducting a post mortem on last Saturday’s Rugby match? Did the referee let things get out of hand? After so many warnings, why did he not put the offenders off, whoever they were? The Canterbury coaches should make it plain: any funny business and you are out! The Lions themselves added to the tension. —Yours, etc., EX-HOCKEY UMPIREJune 22, 1971.

Sir,—Are Canterbury’s potential All Blacks so very much afraid to see the All Blacks beaten at home by the fair means adopted by the Lions? After witnessing Canterbury’s attempts at elimination and reduction of the Lions major players, a disgusting display of Cantabrian and New Zealand “sportsmanship,” I have decided to claim my British patriot status so that I need never admit overseas that I was bom in this land of animals. —Yours, etc., NEVERMORE A KIWI. June 22,1971.

Sir, —“No Longer a Canterbury Supporter” is wrong in supposing that these are new tactics in Canterbury, both on and off the field. I have never been to a game of Rugby since the Canterbury crowd booed and harrassed Don Clarke unmercifully when he was full-back for the North Island. I blushed for shame to be there, and associated with such an unsporting display. I vowed then and there never to attend another big game, and I never have. I think we need to take a fresh look at Rugby and the whole New Zealand attitude to it. I also think that as long as the public act the way they do, players will feel that they are supported in their behaviour, and there will be little improvement.—Yours, etc., A WOMAN’S VIEW. June 22, 1971.

Sir, —When teams take the field in Rugby as in any sport it is implicit that they accept the referee's interpretation of the rules and his decisions, right or wrong, and whether or not they agree with him. His tasks include penalising the offending side for infringements by its members. That Dr Rainey and his fellow referees do not penalise the Lions for “lying on the ball” suggests that

they do not see these tactics as an infringement, and it behoves the home teams to accept this interpretation—even to use it themselves if they feel it confers some advantage. It is not for individual players, however disgruntled or convinced of their rights, to attempt, especially by violence, to inflict their own form of penalty. This is disrespectful to the referee, the rules, and spirit of the game, as well as exhibiting bad sportsmanship and alienating spectator interest.— Yours, etc., THE GAME’S THE THING. June 22, 1971.

Sir, —Mr Vodanovich, should be the last one to make inflammatory predictions of Rugby battles, as he, as a selector, is one of the few who have power to ensure that such do not occur. It is no use blaming the referee; he cannot see everything. The selectors are the guilty men, for should they announce that no-one involved in fighting will be considered for the All Blacks, our would-be tough guys, would soon get the message. Provincial selectors should follow the same principle. The likely offenders are well known and those who, before the game, predicted punch-ups from them were not mistaken. Mr Vodanovich and his fellow-selectors haxe it in their power to ensure that the most attractive tout in years is not spoilt. Are they big enough to do this?— Yours, etc.,

ASHAMED. June 22, 1971.

Sir,—l have read all the letters concerning what has been termed the game of shame at Lancaster Park. When one makes statements like those, one should also consider cause and effects. I do not condone unsportsmanship, but I also do not condone poor refereeing, which in my opinion was the root cause. There is no shadow of doubt the Lions’ are past masters of offside play. They give the impression of getting on side, fully obstructing attacking play, to the continued annoyance of their opponents. Also they pass off the ground; no whistle, no objection. They do lie on the ball and keep it tight; no penalty. Is it any wonder their opponents get hot under the collar? Instead of subjecting the whole of the Canterbury team to such unfair criticism, the referee must at least take some of the blame. —Yours, etc., TWO SIDES TO A PENNY.

June 22, 1971. Weights and measures

Sir,—ls it too much to hope that, on the introduction of metric weights, the scales used by Government departments will be tested with the same regularity and to the same standards as are required for trade scales in shops? Some years ago I drew attention to inaccurate scales in a post office. My parcel had been rejected as over-weight. I had my weighing checked on trade scales at two or three shops. All weighings agreed with mine. I then took it to the C.P.O. in town, where the parcel was weighed and accepted without difficulty. The suburban post office was most reluctant to admit any error, but eventually a new weighing machine was provided. One cannot blame the postal officials for having required many people to repack parcels or pay extra postage, but I feel that post office and railway scales should meet the ordinary trade requirements of annual inspection. —lYours, etc., ARTHUR LUSH.

June 17, 1971. [Mr P. S. Cunningham, assistant district superintendent, Department of Labour, replies: “The department’s weights and measures inspectors carry out periodic inspection and testing of post office and railway scales.”]