MODERN RUGBY

Evening Star, Issue 19774, 26 January 1928, Page 5

MODERN RUGBY

NEW ZEALAND GAME " INNOVATIONS THAT SPOIL " The persistent innovators are at it again, A suggestion has come from New Zealand, where they have invented a rule against kicking into touch unless the player is in Ins own twenty-five, that a side which loses a man through injury before the halftime whistle blows should bo allowed to replace him with a substitute. So much good lias come out of New Zealand lately that many people in this country have been seriously considering this new proposition (writes “Loose-Head,’' in a London journal). They point out that the seven forwards, rover, and two five-eighths combination of the AH Blacks was singularly effective. So, indeed, it was—up to a point. But the All Black side would have been quite as deadly a combination if they had played with the orthodox formation; for, as Mr Wakefield points out in his book, the triangular attack thus formed depends for its effect on perfect combination between three players of equal powers. If one of the line is weak, or is not playing up to form on a particular occasion, the whole attack breaks down, as it is the only means of getting the ball out to the wing. The British method, however, can remedy a temporary weakness in tho centre by playing out to the other wing. This gives it somewhat the same advantage as that possessed by the man who can kick with either foot over the man who is only able to use one. Moreover, there is no doubt that the pack with only seven forwards is going to get the ball far less consistently and easily than the one with eight, if the latter is in any way competently trained in scrummage lore. ARRANGEMENT OF BACKS.

There is ranch, as a matter of fact, to be said for the five-eighths arrangement; but it has by no means proved itself so incontestably superior to tho older fashion. If it had, Leicester would not have contemplated the return to eight forwards after trying out the mau-over theory for so many seasons. And Leicester know, if anyone does, exactly what they are about. It is only ardent supporters of the Midland team who talk about the scarcity of Hies on the “Tigers.” There is room for argument, admittedly, on this point; but there can bo none whatever on the question raised by the other. Once you start allowing substitution, in however restricted a form, you pave the way for the ludicrous lengths to which the system has been allowed to go m the United States. In American football you have enough reserves to make a young army. Specialisation in America has been raised to a fine art. and football has, it one may put it that way, profiteered from it. Players practise hard at particular jobs, are called out of tho serried ranks of reserves when, and only when, their particular lob crops up, and then retire to the touch-line until they are called upon again. , , , The English, rightly or wrongly, prefer a touch of chance to .enter into all their games. And rugger is the most essentially English (or, if one must he pedantic, British) of games, it is hard luck if a side loses a valuable man; but it is all in the run of the game. In any ease, it is surely still harder luck to penalise a side which has not had the misfortune to lose a player by allowing their opponents an absolutely fresh reinforcement.

OTHER CHANGES ADVOCATED. ' Another New Zealand alteration is a local rule stating that no heel maik is necessary when a mark is made. This is a very doubtful improvement, as it means that the only thing.you have to do to be allowed a mark is to field the ball and shout. his jcvfmts the nlavcr, whoso careless kickhm or dribbling has allowed the mark to°be made, from redeeming his mistake by following up .hard ™dkttl<rkliner his man as he trios to ni.uk it. But Wakefield himself lias advocated a change in the rules, and one with which 1, for one, cannot agree Ho suggests that the present method of throwing-in at the line-out alter a touch does not carry a heavy enough penalty for the side which finds touch. His remedy is to allow the side with possession, after a full-toss punt into touch, to restart play by a punt oi a drop-kick in any direction, or a pass straight out or hack. This would mean that the wing could punt dounheld so that the hall would drop m front of the enemy goal-posts and give qmck-follow-ing-up forwards a very strong chance of a snap try. , , ■> It seems to me far too great an advantage to give because a side has chosen to kick for touch instead o going for the line. After all, why should they be heavily penalised? Kicking for' touch. is part of the game, and is a very present help, not only in tune of trouble, but also when you are leading by a very short margin with a very short time to go. Of course, it would make the game still more open But the cost strikes me as not being worth the benefit. Doubtless, it would make the game more attractive to the spectators, but Rugger isn’t played for the spectators is one change, however, that has come about in Rugger through natural evolution and by means of no artificial or argumentative stimulant. That is the position and scope of the wing three-quarter. The old days of direct action—when the scrum half had ball out to the stand-off, the stand-off to the centre, and the centres, after making the openings, sent it to the wing—have become outmoded. Defence has improved so greatly that stereotyped movements, except against inferior or slow-witted defenders, are bound to end in frustration. WING THREE-QUARTER PLAY. Nowadays the ball may go out to the wing iu the approved style; but that gentleman is not going to be of much use to his side if he simply takes to his heels and races down the touchline. He must have quick brains and know how to use them at high speed; he must break through a sound defence by surprising it. In other words, he must catch the other side when they aren’t looking. And he can do it by such ruses as turning inward and giving the reverse pass, or by using the cross-kick to the centre —one of the most effective of scoring devices, always supposing that the forwards are up to it and that a bunch of them see to it that they are well placed to carry it over. There was a very apt example of this modern development in a recent game at 'Richmond, when Cambridge were playing the London Scottish. Well beaten forward, they had to rely almost entirely on their backs. Rowe Harding; on the left wing, soon saw that he was up against an effective but orthodox defence, though it could not compare with his own brilliant backs in any other way. Ho changed his line of attack, swerved inwards as soon as he got the ball, and gave the reverse pass, not to the centre immediately on his right, but to the seetind centre. The defence were caught on the hop, and Cambridge was rewarded by a welldeserved victory. Incidentally, England—and all the other countries—will have to watch that Welsh three-quarter line this year. It needs it.