KICK INTO TOUCH.

Evening Star, Issue 17959, 4 May 1922, Page 3

KICK INTO TOUCH.

DEBATE IN RUGBY PARLIAMENT.

DIVIDED COUNSEL.

The positibn- of tho Now Zealand Union in regard to the amended role of Rugby football practised in Auckland in_ regard to the kick into touch was explained by tho president of the union (Mr James M'Lood) at the annual meeting of the council in Wellington last week. On the order paper there waa a remit from tho Wellington Rugby Union—“ That permission to play under modified rules he not granted, any union.” The president net forth tho negotiations which Jed up to tho permission granted by tho English Rugby Union to play the amendment to Rule 12 den-ling with the kick into touch ns follows “ When it pitches into touch from a kick, other than a penalty kick, from beyond 25yd« of “tho kicker’s goal line, the opposite side, shall bring it out as in (a) at a spot opposite tho spot where the kicker was when ho kicked the ball.” Tho position had been, thoroughly explained by tho aid of diagrams to the English Rugbv Union, and the reply of Mr C. J. B*' Marriott, secretary, that, “in tho meantime (pending further consideration), wherever it is at all possible without detriment to the main principles of our frame, I am instructed to say that, without creating anything but a. concession to your local requirements, my committee offers no objection to games being played with this alteration. • ■ • Several members expressed astonishment at the permission being made general when if. was supposed to apply to Auckland province alone. Air George Dixon (Wanganui) complained that’,the Auckland Union was disingenuous, and ho asked the. Auckland delegates for an assurance that they would, play no other variation of tho rules. Tho rules must bo universal. Mr H. Frost (Auckland) contended that the game as nlaved did not interfere with tho rules as they stood, but the Auckland players interprctecl them differently. There were the imaginary line through tho back of the scrum, the free kick, and the referee putting tho ball into tho scrum. Tho motion was lost by a very largo majority on the voices. Mr j. AlT.cod (Taranaki) then moved the addition to Rule 12 us -already approved provisionally and temporarily by the English Rfigby Union, and stated above. Mr H. Harris (Otago) said that no union should be forced to play the amended rule. It should be quite optional. Mr Frost (Auckland): “Yes, only hi matches played within the. union. In interprovincial matches tho amended rule will be played.” . Mr S. F. Wilson (Canterbury) said be would support the adoption of the rule, '[’hoy ought to give it a season's trial, and see whether it was any good or not. Mr W. T. Parata. (Bay of Plenty) said they had played the rnlo'for several years, and were satisfied it was an improvement, on the game. Alt- E. O. Hales (Wellington) said ho did not see what right the union bad to inflict the rule on any other union unless it, was adopted by tho English Rugby Union. Mr M'L-eod said the council had a right to do anything it thought fit in the control of Rugby football in Now Zealand. If Wellington were not prepared to give the rule a trial, their tactics wore obstructionist. Tic believed it was tho opinion of football in New Zealand that the rules should he given a trial. It would be absurd, ho thought, to make the rule optional. The players should have a chance of saying whether they should play tho rale or not. Tho referees supported tho rule. Air Matheson (North Auckland) said that in June, 1919, they had about 400 spectators at club matches. Last year they had 14,000 spectators at a club match. That showed the effect of the rule.

Air W. F. Hornig (Wellington) said tho matches ho had seen in Auckland under the amended rules were “rotten.”

Air Southgate (Wairarapa) said if tho Wellington remit had been carried Auckland would have to go out of business. Air A. Blythe (King Country) urged that tho wishes of tho majority should cany tho day, and Wellington ought gracefully to accede to tho majority. Tho question was asked what would 'happen if tho English Rugby Union revoked its sanction. Would the dispensation continue?

Afr S. S. Deans (Wellington) said they would be looked on ns .big kids if they said they did not want tho ink, having asked for it and got it. Ho urged that, the rule should bo mandatory.

Air ff. Harris (Otago) said it was unfair to thrust such a motion on unions without notice or time to consider it and instruct their delegates accordingly. Air Hornig rSoved as an amendment—-

That tho Management Committee bo empowered to grant permission to play the amended rules only to such unions

as may apply for tho same. Mr George Dixon, in an impassioned speech, asked why they should make fish of ono and fowl of the other. Not a word was said against Auckland playing its own rules. Why now force them on WoUingto.n? The union should say: “These are the rules. You must play them.” Mr White (Otago) said it would bo far hotter to postpone tho discussion, when it wax quite clear that unions were so divided among Themselves. Ho suggested cabling to tho English Rugby Union at one©. If there was anything to bo done against tho other -crowd he was there all right. The President referred to tho “ imaginary line -behind scrum ” rule in Auckland, and suggested that, while tho rules existing really allowed such an interpretation, it was really a pity for Auckland, to let this, expression appear in their rule book. Consistency was certainly desirable. Tho amendment was lost by a very largo majority on a show of hands. Tho motion embodying the amendment in Rule 12 for the season 1922, as provided by the chairman, was carried, with a few dissentients, on tho voices.