WING-FORWARDS

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 188, 7 May 1931, Page 11

WING-FORWARDS

Stricter Treatment

UNION’S DECISION

Laws of the Game

More drastic treatment of the wingforward is foreshadowed by a resolution of the New Zealand Rugby Union, arrived at last evening, to circularise all affiliated unions that referees are to be instructed to deal more stringently with the "eighth man.”

"I think the wing-forward in New Zealand gets far too much latitude,” said the chairman, Mr. S. S. Dean, who brought the subject forward. “I don’t think we can word sucli a recommendation strongly enough.**

Mr, E. S. Hylton said the recommendation would let referees see that the union was behind them. “There is no doubt that a number of wing-forwards do not play by the rules as they are laid down,” said Mr. A. C. Kitto. “All we want is that referees will interpret the rules as they are laid down.” Mr. Dean’s motion was carried unanimously.

Suggestions from Referees.

A number of suggestions were presented in a letter from the New Zealand Referees’ Association, dealing with laws of the game, and one of them, obviously designed to “hit at” the wing-forward, read: “That a player not in the scrummage, to be on side, must have both feet behind the ball while it is in the scrummage.” The meeting, however, took no action on the suggestion, though when it was being considered Mr. Dean mentioned that he proposed to recommend that unions be circularised to be more stringent on the wing-forward. Two other recommendations from the Referees’ Association were: (1) That the appointment of referees for interprovincial and inter-union matches should be made by the Appointment Board of the N.Z.R.U., from names submitted by the local Rugby union; and (2) that it be a recommendation from the N.Z.R.U. to the Rugby Football Union, that it would be desirable to provide in the laws of the game that a front row player shall not lift a foot until the ball is fairly in the scrummage. The union decided to take no action in either case, after brief discussion. Lack of Information. Another suggestion aroused a good deal of criticism of the failure of the Rugby Football Union to notify New Zealand of its decisions on matters dealing with laws of the game. The Referees’. Association suggested that a law should be included to the effect that a player placing the ball in the scrummage might indicate when the ball was going in, and when the sugges-. tion was read Mr. S. S. Dean said that he understood that was the law in England, although New Zealand had not been notified of it. When the British team played its first match in Wanganui, he said, he had noticed Sobey, the scrum half, calling out where and when the ball was coming into the scrummage. He had mentioned it to Mr. Baxter, and had been informed that that was the law as played in England. Mr. Baxter had agreed that New Zealand should have been notified. “Especially because they had a great deal of criticism to make of our players when they did it on the 1924 tour,” Mr. Dean* added. 'Mr. Baxter had said that the law had been changed since that year. One member suggested that the New Zealand representative on the Rugby Football Union, Mr. Cecil Wray, should be asked to make representations to the home body that all alterations and -decisions concerning rules should be notified to New Zealand immediately. Mr. Dean replied that the matter had been brought to Mr. Wray’s attention when he was in New' Zealand recently, and he had ; promised to see what he could do.'Mr. Baxter had also promised that decisions would be notified to New Zealand.

Finally a resolution was passed again drawingthe Rugby Football Union’s attention that its latest decisions, and those of the International Board, on the laws of the game, were not sent out to New Zealand. A copy of the resolution, it was decided, should be sent to Mr. Wray and to Mr. Baxter. TWO "selectors North and South Islands This year two selectors will be appointed to choose New Zealand Rugby representative teams, according to a decision arrived at by the management committee of the New Zealand Rugby Union last evening. All affiliated unions will be circularised for nominations. One selector will be picked from the South Island and one from the North Island, and in the event of any dispute arising a member of the New Zealand Union will be called in to decide. These selectors will also pick the North Island and South Island teams.

The meeting also decided to send letters to the Rugby Football Union and all other unions concerned dealing with the proposal to call a conference for fhe establishment of an Imperial Rugby Board, as suggested at the annual meeting of delegates last week.

RUGBY REINSTATEMENTS

The following reinstatements to the Rugby code were made at last evening’s meeting of the New Zealand Rugby Union :— M. Hynes, New Plymouth; G. L. Matson, Wanganui; A. L. Barnard, Christchurch ; J. Toohey, Christchurch; J. T. Gilroy, Christchurch; C. S. Sturrock, Christchurch, H. A. Head, Auckland ; C. H. Doncaster, Auckland; R. L. Travis, Auckland; D. W. Shaw, Auckland ; D. Baird, Auckland; N. Allen, Auckland; G. R. King, Auckland; J. Dewar, Auckland; R. Billingham, Auck land; L. C. Lucas. Auckland; A. R. Josey, Auckland; D. Blackman, Auckland; A. R. Martin, Auckland; J. Jameson, Auckland ; W. C. Molloy, Auckland; E. Allison, Auckland; W. K. Francis, Auckland; N. L. Shepperd,' Auckland; J Gadsbv, Otago; J. R. Forrester, Otago. F. H. Hale, Otago; I. J. Hale, Otago; F. Reach, Otago; J. Crook, Otago: E Richardson, Otago; 11. Owens, Otago, W. Barbarr, Otago; J. J. Shepherd, Wellington ; C. Batclielar, Wellington ; M. J. O’Malley, Christchurch, F. Lynskey, Canterbury; J. J. Lynskey, Canterbury; J. B. Curritn. Wellington.

MATCHES WITH AUSTRALIA The New Zealand University ,Rugby Council wrote to last evening’s meeting of the New Zealand Rugby Union applying for a match against the Australian team which will tour New Zealand this year. “It is customary in all other parts of the Empire for games to be arranged between visiting teams and university teams, and the council would like the New Zealand University to have the same privilege.’’ the letter stated. Letters were received from a numbei of affiliated unions cither asking for matches or protesting that they had not been included in the itinerary. As the itinerary was complete, however. the union could take no action. As far as the university letter was concerned, it was commented by Mr. T. Fletcher that it might be noted for future tours.