THE WING-FORWARD

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 123, 27 May 1930, Page 11

THE WING-FORWARD

MALPRACTICE ALLEGED

, ' i MB, BAXTEE'S ATTACK

The remarks by Mr. James Baxter, manager of the British . Rugby football team, the wing-forward position in New Zealand Rugby, have given rise to a good deal of comment. After the first game of the tour—that against Wangauui —he stated that he distinctly disliked the wing-forward, and urged that the player in that position should be abolished. Again at Taranaki on Saturday night, Mr. Bax-1 ter opened fire, this time in such a man- j ncr as to draw comment that his remarks are "altogether too sweeping." "The New Zealand Rugby Union has pronounced against wing-forward play, Mr. Baxter is reported to have' saul at the Official dinner after the match with Taranaki, '-'but has thrown the onus of correcting his malpractices on the referee. With all due deference ,to the controlling body, it has thrown a tremendous responsibility on the refereei No referee can control a wing-forward1 who is on* to beat him. - The referee has. too much to do at the pace the game is played to-day. "The onus of correcting the malpractices o£ wing-forward play is on the clubs. Every club has a committee which picks its players, and if this committee sees any player guilty of malpractice it should be perfectly frank. • The ordinary man who tries to play wing-forward is nothing more nor less than a cheat. He is deliberately trying to beat the referee by unfair tactics. The club can say it will not plaj: a man who is deliberately outwitting thfc referee." ; Mr. Baxter-concluded by saying he was not here ,to criticise New Zealand, , but was here --with the object of endeavouring to get Imperial football throughout the British Empire. He wanted to get everybody to. think alike and play the same type of football. OTHER DIFFERENCES. In the course of his remarks at the function, Mr. H. H. Sterling, of the New Zealand Rugby Union's Management Committee, is reported as stating that M could • not help being struck with fhe various aspects concerning the wing-for-Svard, who was considered by many to be an excresenec, if not, a pest, and whose abolition was urged. He pointed out that as far as the'New'Zealand Union was concerned the position' was that clubs were entitled to play 15 men in certain positions as long as those men did not infringe the rules under the referee s jurisdiction, and therefore the responsibility fell on the referee. Whether the wingforward was to be played or not was a matter for consideration by the clubs. It was, however, a difficult question. He pointed out that the question of speeding up the game had been a burning question in New Zealand, and various rules had been adopted for that purpose, such as the kick into touch. ' What was wanted was for some genius to arise who would tell them how to speed up the game. The referee (Mr. Rowe) said that referees looked to the New Zealand Union for guidance in the matter. He considered that if they circularised the unions favouring- doing away with' wing-forwards it would be better than placing the onus on the referee, who had enough to do already. The wing-forward did beat the referee once or twice that day. - Mr J. M'lieod.said that on that days ■pwi- ho was not prepared to say that the '•;-•>-■- formation was better than the 2-3-2. "if •;':» British could get the ball away as ijiiVuly as they did that day, thus renderjii" the wing-forward ineffective, clubs <--'ul;l be depended upon to find another place for him. They would not keep a wan where he would be of no use.