"INOPERATIVE"

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 111, 12 May 1934, Page 20

"INOPERATIVE"

SCRUMMAGE RULE

Referring to hooking' the ball and scrummage rules in Rugby, Mr. S. F. Wilson, a former president of the New Zealand Bugby Union, and an ex-presi-dent of the Canterbury Eugby Union, writes-to the "Ohristehureh Star" as follows:—"An article in the 'Star' contributed by 'W.B.K.' is, I think, in almost every respect wrong. First he says that every New Zealand enthusiast was of the opinion that the hooking rule was framed specially to force New Zealand to abandon her two-three-two formation.- Our grievance is quite the contrary. We contend that, having no representation on the International Board, our point of view in regard to framing new rules is entirely ignored. 'W.E.K.' says that tho rule (15) is theoretically perfect. My opinion is that it is inoperative both legally and practically. The only rule in the book defining a scrummage (and it has been in existence for about forty years) is Rule (2), which reads: —"A scrummage is formed by one or more players from each side closing round the ball when it is oil the ground or

by their closing round waiting for the ball to bo^ put in. ' A MACHINERY CLAUSE. "Kule 15 is purely a machinery clause, and is governed by Rule (2), and just how one man in the front can hook a ball with his fourth foot I leave to my theoretical friend, 'W.R.K.' "Presuming the above contention to be wrong, the new rule is not good, and with the human element concerned is irritable and impossible of correct application. • The six front row men are in the same position as sprinters standing on the mark, and so on their toes. The first movement of the starter will cause them to break. It is not reasonable to think that six men with the weight applied can wait until the ball is past tho th/d foot. Again, immediately the scrum moves, they probably lose sight of the ball, and it is a case of every man for himself. No referee can see tho ball in a moving scrum when it has passed two feet, so for this reason alone tho rule must be useless.' '' There are about fifty serums in every game, and it is essential that the rule should bo simple and easy to operate. In my playing days, when Rule (2) operated without any trimmings, the referees insisted on the ball going in immediately a couple of men were down, .and so long as the ball was placed so as to give each side an equal chance all was well. After all, that should bo tho object of every rule. The fact is that England has allowed, through bad refereeing, the centre player in the front to swing and place his legs across the channel of the serum (they did this in 1924), and things became so chaotic that the theorists evolved the present rule, forgetting entirely Rule (2)."