SCRUM STRATEGY

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 69, 1 October 1928, Page 15

SCRUM STRATEGY

LEGALITY—DISPUTED ALL BLACKS' MANOEUVRE USE OP LOOSE HEAD (From "The Post's" Special Correspondent.) PORT ELIZABETH, ,18th August. Quite tho most discussed feature of he All Blacks' play after tho second 'est match was the serum maucouvro mployed by R.L. Stewart, the rover, > counteract the' Springboks' superiorly in the scrums, and many of the lading critics and prominent players aye not hesitated to challenge its legally Mr. V. H. Neser, the old Rhodes •h'olar and Oxford Blue, who refereed le Tests, did not rule against the taecs of the All Blacks' rover m securig the loose head, holding that there ■as nothing' in the rules to- prevent tewart coming up into the front rank Eter the scrum had been formed, as ie tourists were merely availing theinilves of the rule which ■ allows three ien up in the front rank, the normal 'ew Zealand formation of two men in ie front rank allowing him the loose jad every time. , _ The accuracy of this point of view is )t seriously challenged and discussion iges on the contention that the All lacks' tactics are illegal both as rends hooking and obstruction. Stew-.-fdoes not pack in line with his own irwards, but goes down sideways on ie loose head, packing obliquely well -. front of the normal stance of his irwards, stretching his leg forward ght across the feet 'of the Springbok >okers, and hooking himself with his itside foot. * 'A KNOTTY PROBLEM. '' "The Star" (Johannesburg) contenting on the All Blacks' strategy, ates: "It is most significant that the ew Zealanders only -exploited the anoeuvrc in the second Test match id in the first half of tho match jainst Pretoria, when it was recognis--1 they had a hard match to win. Once ey established a winning lead in tho tter game they abandoned the strat;y, with the result that tho Pretorians ;" once assumed command of the rums, their, superiority iii hooking the ill being as marked in the second ilf as was the superiority of the All lacks' in the first' hali when they ere .exploiting Stewart in the loose ;ad. From the very fact that the_ All lacks have not ventured to continue eir tactics, apout the legality of which ere.is such keen discussion, it may ! fair to assume that they are not ixious to test the opinion of referees i the point, but prefer to resorve c manoeuvre for the all-important ;st matches. The All Blacks have cerinly introduced another knotty proem into the game, and their ingenuity mmands every respect) but if .permitd by referees, it is to be feared that will lead to offsetting tactics which ill further detract from open play id load to an evil as acute as the old ruggle for the loose head, which has jhtly been legislated agaiust." ■ RULING GIVEN. Theo. Pienaar, the 1921 Springboek ptain and manager of the present iringbok team, submitted the legality the manoeuvre to the Rules Comittec of the South African Rugby )ard.prior to the third Test match in c form of the following question:— "Side A, having packed down with ,-o men in tho front row, may X of at side, before the ball has been put , join his front row?" The Eules Committee, after-carefully nsidering the point, replied: "Yes, provided he observes certain les. These arc as follows:—(l)'Paraaph 1 of law 15 (b), which reads, 'No ayer shall wilfully prevent tho ball ing faily put in the scrummage';-para-aph 4 of law 15 (b), 'A player who ayes either foot beyond the front line his forwards before the ball is fairly the scrummage shall be treated as wilfully preventing.' (2) Law 17 a): 'A player is off-side if ho enter c scrummage from his opponents' le.' (3) 'H<j causes no delay in allowg tho ball to be put in.' "In construing proviso (1) the' folding two paragraphs of the agreesnt between the South African Re--rccs' Society and' the- Management immittee of the New Zealand team ould be observed:—No. 2: 'The front, ie of the forwards is the line formed ■ the ordinary normal stance of play's iv the front rank,' No. 3: 'A player a scrum may lift his foot from the ound before the ball is fairly in the turn, provided he does not advance eh foot beyond tho front line of his rwards.'" The committee added that theso pro30s were all quostions of fact for the force to determine. Ho must sec (1) at the player causes no delay; (2) es not prevent the ball from being j t into the scrummage; and (3) does t advance or put his foot in front of 3 other front line players. The ruling obviously challenged tho rrectness of Mr. Neser's interpretams in the second Test match, as it is limed that when the player went into s front tow of the scrum and packed an oblique angle he must infringe ). 3 paragraph of tho agreement beeeu the New Zealanders and tho uth African Referees' Society. Rigjitof course, the question of fact was 't to the referee.