"BAXTERITIS"

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 63, 12 September 1932, Page 5

"BAXTERITIS"

ENGLISH EUGBY EULES

POSITION IN NEW ZEALAND

REFEREES1 CRITICISM

Rules and interpretations. under which Rugby football has been played in New Zealand this season, particularly those in regard to the scrummage, the ntmreplacement* of injured players, and the prohibition of players leaving the field of pJay at half-time, were trenchantly criticised by several speakers at the annual smoke concert of the Wellington Rugby ±leierees Association on Saturday night. One speaker's view was that the New Zealand Rugby Union was suffering from Baxtentis." In proposing the toast of the Welling, ton Rugby Football Union, Mr. R. E. J. Martin said that m his opinion the playing of the English; rules had resulted in a good deal of confusion and dissatisfaction, one might say, from the. North Cape to the Bluff. There were one or two rules which were not elastic enough to suit conditions in New Zealand. They were mandatory, and he thought the sooner the powers that be got to work and told the International Board where they stepped off the better. (Hear, hear.) Mr.-Martin said that the referees were looking forward to better times next year, and he was sure that if the Wellington Union had: any hand in the matter it would do its best so that the grand old game of Rugby might make further progress. SCRUMMAGE RULE. Later in the evening Mr. J. Moffitt mentioned that the latest information from England was that the scrummage law. was going to be altered again. In his opinion the proposed alteration would suit New Zealand better, and would en. able us to get back .to the old 2-3-2 for-' mation. He agreed with Mr. Martin that certain of the rules from New Zealand's point of view were not elastic enough. However, New Zealand was bound to accept the rnles as they were laid down by the English authorities until such'time as some more drastic step was taken1. Personally he had no time for .the/scrummage rule at present in operation. ' Mr. A. de Clifton expressed the • view that the New Zealand Rugby Union was inclined to leave too much.to the International Board. He thought the,' 'New Zealand Union should have something to say m regard to the rules; (Hear; hear.) As far as the referees were • concerned, through the instruction class, they wert* able to get-the rules down to a fine art but what chance had the players of studying the rules in a proper manner? Why could there not be uniformity? The Rugby game had been played'for over 100 years. Latterly;- without exception, there had been some alteration to the rules every season, and in his opinion there was no reason for such , a state of affairs. The rules wer6 not tinkered with in other codes., At the present time the players and the public. alike were confused, and almost every' time a.'..side"was' penalised the' question was asked:: "What was that for? ~ . . .- . . -■'.-'. ''I sayl we should get dpwn :t6 our own tulmgs.and play our own . game iri this country,-' added Mr. de Clifton,' amidst a! chorus.'ofrapproval; v ■ . .. r -.-,■;■';'\ .";tHE BROAD SPIRIT. > Reference; to the rules, although from a somewhat different angle, was made by Major T. J.. King, ,a member of the Management Committee of the Wellington Major King said it was a; most difficult matter to get players to study- the 'rules, and the result was that they _ were rather prone to commit breaches .through sheer ignorance. The referee, lon; the other hand, after,having tor . swatf'> them up, knew a great deal more about .them, and probably on occasions there was more whistle than one thought' there ought to be. In that respect ie-was personally of the opinion that the -rules were. there mainly as a guide;>aa;he- thought/it to -the advanteeespfeslaye?*|if#th^*-studied 'the; rulings of the outstanding' referees each season. His view was that the referee ■who got to the top was the one who controlled a game in the broad spirit, though seeing always, o£ course, that each side got a fair "go." "