The Dominion FRIDAY, MAY 1, 1931. CONTROL OF RUGBY FOOTBALL.

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 182, 1 May 1931, Page 8

The Dominion FRIDAY, MAY 1, 1931. CONTROL OF RUGBY FOOTBALL.

The decision of the New Zealand Rugby Union to return to the rules as laid down by the English Union is of great important: in the future of our national game. There will be few regre si a this return to the orthodox fold has been made unconditionally because it removes any risk of New Zealand becoming a Rugby outlaw and secures our place in the comity of Rugby nations. This Dornin on would regret it very much if insistence on local variations of th rules debarred it from international contests. Probably more than anything else it was the exchange of visits with the Springboks that prompted self-questionings m New Zealanders whether, after all, we were the last word in Rug football. Certainly self-examination was suspended between whi owing to the All Blacks’ triumph in England, Wales and Ireland, ano Scotland’s refusal to meet our representatives was accepted indifferently or defiantly. Nevertheless the fact that the Springboks in two series of tests showed they had a Roland for our Ohv Had about that the soil was prepared for the seed that was sown by the British visitors last year. Not that they came as missionaries to preach orthodoxy but to play the game. 1 ney played it so well, with such dash, brightness and variety of tactics, always .keeping within their restricted code, that New Zealand wa. r convinced their game gave as much elasticity and room for movemen as anyone cottM desire. Moreover New Zealand had experienced the uneasiness that once she strayed from uniformity, there were some within her own fold that wanted to go further still and make dispensations for themselves. . • * To persist contumaciously in our local heresies would also nave finally prevented the Dominion from having that voice m the government of Rugby that she desires and to which her status in the game entitles her. The English rules may not be perfect but we should have no opportunity of improving them if we became a law. to ourselves. We would simply be sent to Coventry. .As it is, New , Zealand can urge her claim to a seat on the International or Imperial Rugby Board and is entitled to hope that she will have a part in the control of the game. , ' ‘ This decision has been a notable victory for open-mindedness. Perhaps it is not proof that we are not taking the game too seriously a tendency of which Dr. Adams spoke at the Union’s annual meeting!—but' it is a sign that we are not taking ourselves too seriously. We, have admitted the other, fellow’s argument. At the same time Dr. Adams’s caution was timely. Doubtless the Press 'is partly to blame, as witness the present article and also some of the captions over reports of the annual meeting, such as ‘Rugby Government,” “Parliament of Rugby” and the rest. Keenness is, of course, essential to sport. No one would or should play if he has not the urge and that urge impels him to want to win. But there is a tendency to concentrate on the result at the expense of the game and so lose the spirit of play. Matchwinning becomes almost a business with a certain grimness about it. The end becomes everything whereas it is the means that should matter in sport. No doubt cups, shields and other trophies have something to do with it—and the Press—but these are accessories after the fact of undue concentration on the part of the public. The thing is to guard against the various unhealthy tendencies, and principally to have less business in the game and, more sport. For Rugby football and all other good games are worth preserving from the blight of commercialism. This is, a materialistic age of fierce competition and we should preserve such sanctuaries as are left; “go-getting” should be kept out of sport. Relaxation is good . for the mind and the body, whether we take our Rugby as players or spectators; but if we key it up to too high a pitch, we shall lose all we set out to gain.