N.Z. rugby bosses must reshape game’s framework

Press, 12 June 1986, Page 40

N.Z. rugby bosses must reshape game’s framework

By

JOHN BROOKS

The New Zealand Rugby Union council’s rebuking of Colin Meads for his involvement in the Cavaliers’ tour of South Africa recalls the apocryphal story about a young lock forward who opposed the mighty “Pine Tree” in an All Black trial.

After the match a friend observed that the young man had emerged from the game relatively unscathed, and was puzzled to know how this had happened. "Well,” said the young lock, “at the first line-out I looked him in the eye and told him if there was any funny business he would be in trouble. “Gee,” replied the friend, “that was a gutsy thing to do.” The young one looked abashed. “Actually, I said it very quietly,” he said. The action of the N.Z.R.U. council in merely admonishing Meads was quaint and predictable, but it has astounded many New Zealanders, including some rugby folk. The Canterbury union’s request for the national body to rethink its stance on the straying New Zealand selector is an expression of this. The inference is that because Meads is a not-

able figure in the game, and a household name for life, the New Zealand council has bent over backwards to treat him delicately. His contribution to rugby over the last 30 years was mentioned as mitigation. This, however, was hardly the point at issue. No matter how much castigating of Meads went on behind closed doors, the indelible impression is that the big man walked out of the meeting smelling like roses, as did another famous lock forward, Andy Haden, on a separate issue last year. The faintly farcical aspect to the affair was strengthened by Colin Meads’s observation that a national selector needed to be in South Africa to gauge the form of the country’s so-called top 30 players. Later, he said his trip represented an opportunity to learn more about modern rugby techniques. Andy Dalton could speak feelingly on that one. So instead of being

sacked, or suspended, “Piney” will assist Brian Lochore and “Tiny” Hill to select an All Black side to oppose France on June 28 — a test in which none of the Cavaliers will take part. The national council’s lenience to Meads, and, indeed, its cautious attitude to the Cavaliers’ tour all along, is in sharp contrast to the view of France’s “Mr Rugby,” Albert Ferrasse. When rumours of a French rebel tour of South Africa reached his ears, Mr Ferrasse boomed: “Anyone who goes can stay there.” The N.Z.R.U. council can expect some scathing criticism from overseas on its treatment of Meads. Some Fleet Street scribes have already been most unkind. The council is plainly wary over the possibility of legal action arising out of its decisions on the Cavaliers. But the solution is in the councillors’ hands; they need to

reshape rugby’s thinking and amend the rules to bring the game in line with the demands of 1980 s-style sport. The Cavaliers’ trip to South Africa was not so much a tit-for-tat reflex action arising from the torpedoing of the official tour last year, but rather an expression of player unrest with officialdom, both at N.Z.R.U. and International Rugby Board levels. For the moment, Andy Dalton and his fellow rebels have got that out of their systems, thanks to Burger Geldenhuys, Ken Rowlands, Naas Botha, and others. But the long-neglected wound will continue to fester unless the national council acts swiftly and decisively to put rugby’s house in order. It is fervently to be hoped that the kid-glove i treatment of Colin Meads; does not presage just an-' other period of appeasement.