RUGBY SCRUM

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 171, 15 April 1932, Page 17

RUGBY SCRUM

Three in Front Row ! NEW ZEALAND IN LINE Uniformity of Rules WING-FORWARD TO GO After a protracted discussion yesterday. the tielegates of the New Zealand Rugby Union, at the annual conference, decided to recommend affiliated unions that the three fionttow scrum be adopted, and the S forward position should be abol "We are the only Rugby-playing country in the world that plays a recognised wing-forward in our game, said the president, Mr. S. S. Dean, a?i it is felt, for the sake of uniformity, that we should take the step. By doing so, our mana will be greatly increased overseas. There is no doubt that our wing-forward is a spoiler or back play, and the deterioration in out back play is in no small measure due to the attention paid to opposing mside backs by the person occupying this position w on the field of play. The serum rule, too, will militate against a two front-row scrum when opposed 'to a three front-row pack." Mr. Dean moved: That with a view to securing uniformity. this conference approves of tne management committee's recommenaation that the three front-row scrum be adopted, and the wing-forward position be abolished, and recommends acceptance to all affiliated unions.

Mr. A. C. Kitto (Wellington) seconded f 'thc motion, remarking that under the new rule the ball must go past three feet iu the scrum before it can be hooked; the New Zealand system of two men in the front row would be out of action. Mr. J. McLeod (Taranaki) stitd what was desired was to remove the wing-forward, who was not regarded with favour in other countries. If they could induce the clubs of New Zealand to eliminate the wing-forwarld, they would be taking a: great step forward Mr’. A. .1. Griffiths (Wellington) saijd that three men had been played in tire front of the scrum in the match between Poneke and Petone last Saturday, and the ball bad come out cleanly, uisl the half-back had not been molested. Object of New Rule. Mr. C. G. Porter (Wellington) sajfa there was no one more in favour of uniformity than be, but he was cornvinced that the new rule gave a decided advantage to the New Zealand formation of two men in the front row. Under the new rule only two men could hook the ball, and why, therefore), should New Zealand discard its present formation? • Wakefield, the Eug>lish captain, had told him that the new rule had been brought In to compel the centre man in the front row to keep his feet on the ground. Dr. G. J. Adams (Wanganui) hoped that New Zealand would agree to adopt, a uniform system of scrumming, and to eliminate the wing-forward. New Zealand’s success in the past had been dtrej not to any particular form of scrum for-f mation, but to superiority. Brighter Back Play. Mr. Wallace said the English unions!, were wealthy, and had not any reason, to worry about the public. The speaker! traced the history of wing-forwards, and claimed that the abolition of the, wing-forward would make for much' brighter back play. The best place., for the wing-forward would be iu the r front row of the scrum. He maintained! that the 3-2-3 scrum was just as ef-i feetive as the New Zealand 2-3-2. Ifj| New Zealand were to adopt the 3-2-$< formation, it would considerably’’ brighten up back play. Mr. M. F. Nicholls said he was con-; vinced that a three-front formation, would beat the two-in-front every time.. By the aid of diagrams he showed what, a disadvantage the New Zealand forwards had been under iu South Africa, in 1928. Mr. Porter here took a turn at the. blackboard, and demonstrated that only two men could hook the ball, no matter what formation was used. South Africa, he said, employed a 3-4-1 formation. which England had adopted. Mr. E. McKenzie (Wairarapa) considered that the number of men iu thjgi serum should be reduced. The public would not pay to sec seven or eight, big men shoving about in scrums. He thought that the rule as laid down should be adopted for this year. Mr. W. F. Horuig favoured a uniform scrum with three men iu the front,’ row. When the New Zealand team was in South Africa in 1928, the South! Africans secured the ball from tiiej scrums JOO times more than did thia. New Zealanders in the first eleven, matches. When the New Zealand team; put a third man in the front row they, got 50-50 of the ball. Mr. N. McKenzie (Hawke's Bay) said that nearly every country had a different scrum formation, and the New Zealand union had been continually altering the scrummage laws. He. was of opinion that three men in the. front row would cause more trouble, than two. Mr. Wei,r (Wairarapa) held that the conference should lay down a definite ruling, and not allow unions or chibs, to play us they liked. Removing Prejudice. Mr. S. F. Wilson (Canterbury) said! that there was always a prejudices overseas agaiust the New Zealand formation. They wanted to get the maximum amount of enjoyment out of the-' game, and overseas people always gave the idea that New Zealand had beateit them unfairly. Mr. R. Masters (Canterbury ) thought that New Zealand should fall into line, with other countries in order to jtvoul the adverse criticism which has bee.<r levelled by other nations. Mr. Belcher (Auckland) moveda, and Mr. IT. Manoy (Golden Bay>Motucka) second, (he following auieudh mcul. :— That this incetlng of ilclcgntca mutually agrees without exception that alt unions adopt the three in the front, row scrummage. and abolish the wingforward position. On being put to the meeting, the, amendment was lost, ami the motion, on being put to the vote, was carriecf by 50 to 21.