League violence provoked

Press, 15 April 1978, Page 56

League violence provoked

By

JOHN COFFEY

One of the most common defences of Canterbury rugby league players required to attend judicial they were provoked and in many cases this indisputably led to the actions which cul-

consider it legitimate to use niggling tactics against their opponents in a bid to unsettle them, at the very least, or draw a reply in kind that will come to the attention of the referee.

rival whose temper can be easily aroused is a particularly suitable target for such methods. Such ploys were first devised in the professional leagues overseas and have their parallel tory is the uppermost con-

Plenty of seemingly petty! offences can be adopted to' lends itself to surreptitious) strategies: an underhand nudge with an elbow, lx>ot,| or knee, general scragging, a, push to the back of the head!

when conditions are muddy,!l or an "accidental” treading;! on the tackled player’s hand' as he seeks to rise to play) the ball. ) At the scrummage, too,! 1 there are means of unsettl-j: ing one’s marker. Attempts to “steal” the loose head, I; the slipping of a hand over h the eyes of the opposing hooker, or the clipping of an h unprotected ankle can all h develop into flare-ups between the front rows. The deliberate concession of penalties in an attempt to regain possession has be- ; come less frequent in rugby < league since the introduction of a rule allowing the nonoffending side to restart i play with a tap kick after i I placing the ball into touch. But there was more than a); i suspicion last season that) 1 one premier team felt it was ’ I worth giving away twolpoints rather than risk aI, possible five, when hard on I, defence. I There have been two orderings off on the four ; days or nights of premier ] football this month in con- ■ trasting circumstances. ’ The first, of Mark Broad-1<

‘hurst by Tony Drake, was a ; notable example of how ‘underhand tactics might be I regarded as having succeeded. Broadhurst retaliated )with his fists when a rival (forward used his boots on (one of Broadhurst’s teaml mates who was in no position to defend himself. Not too much earlier, the | same player had kneed an opponent who had already (been grounded in a tackle. (Drake was unsighted on (both occasions although the line umpire should have seen at least the second incident. It is when players feel that match officials are not dispensing justice that they take matters into their own : hands. One usually mild : mannered team-mate of | Broadhurst’s chased and viciously tackled the player (who had precipitated the ! earlier flare-up and he (earned a term in the “chillybin” for his deed. Referees are aware of niggling tactics and will probably eventually catch up with this particular offender, who caused his opponents to ‘carry on with 12 men for

the last 63min of the game and with 11 for the 10 min that the “chilly-bin” was occupied. The second dismissal, that of Stephen Bazeley last Wednesday evening, has yet to be adjudicated on. But if his offence was of the niggling type rather than a direct attempt to cause injury then the action of Trevor Houston probably prevented any escalation of trouble in what had been, and remained, a hard and clean encounter.

An opposing view might be that a term in the “chillybin” would have been sufficient. Undoubtedly, though, a permanent ordering off has a far greater impact on the other players and provioes no chance of anyone attempting to balance the ledger when the offender returns from the “chilly-bin.” It is unlikely that niggling or gamesmanship will ever be eradicated from sport but Houston’s action should i cause players to ponder whether the risk of probing for more obvious offences from the opposition is really worth while.