SCRUMMAGE RULE

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 75, 30 March 1932, Page 5

SCRUMMAGE RULE

ETTCxBY CONTROVEESY

CLEARING THE ISSUE

PORTER EXPLAINS

Opinions in some quarters that the ifew scrummage rule in Eugby football was 'framed to force New Zealand into the position of adopting a scrummage with three men in the front row are discounted by Mr. C. G. Porter, ex-captain of New Zealand Rugby teams, who also points out that a great deal of misunderstanding of the position in regard tc hooking the ballhas been created through the reference iv the new rule to "three men on either side." The ball can still be hooked after passing two feet on either side, although the first three feet on • either Bide must .not be used for this purpose until it has passed them. As has ' been pointed out in "The Post," the ball can be hooked by either of the fourth feet, from the side on which it has been put in immediately it has passed two feet on either side This, Mr. Porter holds, gives New Zealand with its 2-3^2 formation a much better chance of getting the ball against a 3-2-3 formation than has been the case in the past. . AGAINST A CHANGE. . '-The question is: Which is it to be, ' three men or two men in the front row?" said Mr; Porter in discussing the matter. "My answer definitely is two: There is only one scrummage formation for New Zealand—2-3-2. One has only to study the new rule to see that it does not affect New Zealand adversely. It definitely gives New Zealand a greater opportunity than * ever before presented in packing against 3-2-3. formations. A great controversy is going on at the present time, and there is a good deal of misapprehension regarding the new rule. It is evident that the position-needs to be clarified, and I would point out that the rule with regard to the ball being fairly in the scrummage remains the same. This fact should be apecially noted. The rule aays:— •The..ball-is. not fairly, in the scrummage until it has been put in straight, has touched the ground between the opposing players, and has passed both " feet of a. player of each team. "This means that -when' New Zealand packs on the centre man of the 3-2-3 formation (or other formation with three ' men :in the front row as against New Zealand's two), the: ball is fairly in the scrummage when it.haa passed' two feet on our side, i.e., the : second foot of onr first man. It has already passed two feet on the other side. Therefore, it is fairly in. the scrummage and can be hooked. Unfortunately, the new rule. with regard to scrummaging has created the impression that 'this is not so. -The new rule reads:— No player in a. scrummage shall raise a foot oS the ground or advance either beyond the line of feet of his front row forwards until the ball' is fairly in •. the scrummage, and the first three feet of the front row forwards of each team on the side on-which the ball is being put in shall not be so raised or advanced until the ball has passed them. ■ "The great point to remember in reading this rule is that the ball is fairly in the scrummage when it has passed two feet on either - side. The confusion has been created by the fact that the new rule makes special reference to three feet on either side. This does not apply to the ball being fairly in the scrummage. . FAIRER PASSAGE FOR BALL. 'T do not believe that this rule "was brought in to affect New Zealand's formation, ateall. In my opinion it was brought in to eliminate the difficulty of getting •the ball fairly into the scrummage in a three-men front row formation as played in England. One has only to look back to the New Zealand teams that have played against this formation to realise the difficulty encountered in getting the ball fairly into the scrummage. There have been as many as seven or eight attempts by New Zealand to get the ball in fairly. "The difficulty has been caused by the -middle row man, the 'rake,' obstructing the passage of the ball or raising both feet ..before, the ball ;has-been-in. It is an abBolutetfacF^tha't''the ball has been in. the scrummage and- considered' fairly hooked when it has been putin behind.both feet' of -■ tin 'rake.' 'In my opinion this new: rule, has been brought in to get • rid of this,obstruction. One may well asfi: Why does not the referee penalise this' player? But it is.a difficult matter when you havetwo such men ('rakes') opposing each other, and the referee, instead of inflicting; a penalty, generally orders the ball to be put in again. , NO REASON TO CHANGE. "As. New Zealand has always packed 2-3-2, except when in South Africa, there is no. reason for any change frpta this, formation, The advantage .'to New Zealand now is that under this new rule the middle man of the three-front-row formation,, as well as the others, must keep, both: feet on the ground until the ball is fairly in. In addition to that this middle man's chances of hooking are reduced by the stipulation that the ball must pass three feet on either'side before any : one of these three feet can be raised, or advanced. Other feet, however, can hook the ball when it has passed two.feet. _ It is only reasonable to assume that with the restriction now placed upon'the 'rake* New Zealand, as I said before, is given a greater opportunity of hooking than was the case previously against a three-front-row scrummage! • ' "' ■ "There is no doubt that the idea of changing New Zealand's formation was brought about by the confusing of the new rule with-the one which provides for the ball being fairly in the scrummage. The whole point to be borne in mind is that the ball is fairly in the scrummage when it has passed two feet on either side. . i I "LOOSE HEAD" GIFT. "New Zealand has invariably packed on the centre man for the -purpose' of getting an even scrum as well as to avoid j trouble in fighting for the loose head," Mr. Porter added. "If the centre man of the opposing three front rankers is going \ to.be restricted to theestent now provided for in the new rule, and New- Zealand packs on the outside man, i.e., gets the loose head, it will place New Zealand in the position of being the only.side able to >hook the ball under the new rule. It would practically mean that New Zealand would be presented ■ with the ball."