RUGBY RULES

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 130, 5 June 1933, Page 11

RUGBY RULES

AUCKLAND STRATAGEM

AMENDED KICK-INTO-TOUCH

The terms of the resolution adopted at the annual meeting of the New Zealand Rugby Union on the question of.replacement of injured players have provided the cue for the Auckland Rugby Union to advance its case for the reintroduction of the "amended rules..." A hint was thrown out at the New Zealand assembly that Auckland Rugby would be better off by the readoption of the amended kick-into-toueh rule, and it was suggested that there should be no exception to this so long as it applied only to purely Auckland matches. Since then the matter has been discussed at meetings of the Auckland Rugby Union's management- committee, and . in pi-esenting a motion onthe subject Mr. A. Billington said: "The New Zealand Union in its recent actions, has moved away from established tradition, and I see no reason why this union cannot take a like step. The New Zealand Union has established a precedent which might work very awkwardly for it at some future time." The Auckland motion, for the New Zealand Rugby "Union's consideration, is as follows: "That the Auckland Rugby Union appreciates the earnest consideration which the New Zealand Union has always giv.en to the representations made from Auckland with reference to the playing of what is known as 'amended rules' and respects the loyalty to' New Zealand's affiliation to the Rugby Football Union which has, with other reasons, prevented the New Zealand Union from accepting the view that the playing of 'amended rules' should be ■ permitted. This union, however, believes that the interests of Rugby football in Auckland would be best served if • the Auckland Union were permitted to play the amended kick-into-touch rules in the club competitions controlled' by it." For purposes of comparison the motion j passed at the' annual meeting of the New Zealand Rugby Union was as follows: — "That this union appreciates the courteous attention which the Rugby Football Union has given to the representations made from New Zealand with Teference to the replacement of injured players, respects the attachment to tradition which, has, with other reasons, prevented the Rugby F6otball Union from accepting j the view that replacements should be permitted, and values highly the bonds of sentiment that have united, and continue to unite, the Rugby Football Union and the New Zealand Union. This union believes, however, that the interests of Rugby football in New. Zealand would be best served if the traditional practice were allowed to continue." This motion was somewhat ambiguous in that its intention was not disclosed definitely. The intention has.since been made clear by the replacement of injured players.