Top rugby coaches scorn proposed scrum changes

Press, 26 December 1984, Page 26

Top rugby coaches scorn proposed scrum changes

JOHN BROOKS

Two of New Zealand’s leading provincial rugby coaches believe that the proposed rule changes, relating chiefly to the scrum, will emasculate the game. Alex Wyllie, the coach of the Ranfurly Shield holder, Canterbury, asserted that the council of the New Zealand Rugby Union had panicked in its endeavours to make the game safer. “They might as well turn over to league and be done with it,” he said tersely. His sentiments were echoed by lan Upston, who has just been chosen to serve his ninth term as Wellington’s coach. The normally cheerful Mr Upston pulled a glum face and said the recommended changes would ruin first division rugby “as we know it.” 4 Mr Wyllie, himself one of

New Zealand’s foremost exponents of back row play in the 1960 s and 19705, lamented the loss of status proposed for his old position. “It is bloody disgusting,” he said. “There will be no need for a No. 8, because no pushing or wheeling would be allowed under these proposals. You might as well say the scrum is gone, because everything like that would be banned. “There is an art in scrummaging and in developing play around the scrum, but they aim to take everything away from the forwards and the half-back. “There would be no need for powerhouse forwards such as Gary Knight, John Ashworth and Scott Crichton. They would all be gone. It amazes me that the union hasn’t looked into the effects which would follow the

introduction of these rules.” Asked what he would do if the proposed changes became law, Mr Wyllie said grimly, “give up!” On the unanimous vote of its councillors, the New Zealand union recently resolved to recommend the rule changes to the next meeting of the International Rugby Board, in Paris in March. The changes are designed mainly to produce a stationary scrum, and the council hopes they will reduce the risk of scrum and maul injuries and encourage more enterprising back play. But Mr Wyllie accused the council of misguided thinking. “I don’t believe they have thought what will transpire if these proposals become law,” he said. “The role of players will be substantially altered; watered down in

the case of the forwards. In extreme conditions, wet or dry, the rules could create all sorts of problems. “And they won’t clear up injuries; at the top level that sort of thing rarely happens, not around the scrum anyway. The odd case of serious injury is usually caused in a tackle.

“The least the council could have done was to get all the provincial coaches together and invite comment from them. But the council has gone ahead willy nilly.” Mr Wyllie advocated a return to basic rules and the coaching of young players correctly in their formative footballing stages. “Until the boys reach secondary school there should be no competiton rugby for them — I’ve always said that. Perhaps'the laws could be relaxed a

little so that young players learn to run and pass the ball correctly. “If the council had a reflective look at the rules as they stand now and scrubbed half of them, it would serve the game much better.” Mr Upston asserted that the rules, if changed, would play into the hands of weaker teams. They would be able to use the No. 8 as a rover to suffocate blind-side play, or employ him' as an extra man in the middle to stifle back play. The moves would consequently defeat the council’s own aim of encouraging back play. “Rugby is a game for the big man and the little man,” he said. “These proposals, however, would take all the grunt out of rugby. Guys such as Gary Knight would become superfluous.”