RUGBY SCRUM

Evening Star, Issue 21054, 17 March 1932, Page 9

RUGBY SCRUM

MERITS OF VARIOUS FORMATIONS DISCUSSION. BY RUGBY UNION The annual meeting of the delegates to the Otago Rugby Union last night considered a recommendation from the Management Committee of the New Zealand Rugby Union that all affiliated unions should adopt the 3-2-3 scrum formation and abolish the wing forward. A circular from the New Zealand Union stated; —

“ It must generally be conceded that the present-day wing forward is a destructive force so far as attacking play is concerned, and it is felt that if tho position is abolished, our inside hack play would greatly improve, and it would add to the attractiveness and pleasure of the game to both players and tho public. It must be recognised too, that tho position has been and always will be the cause of friction and criticism not only of the person playing in the position, but of the team itself whenever.it journeys overseas. “It is the considered opinion of the committee that to put ourselves on-side as far as the outside world is concerned, we should agree not to play a wing forward, and to adopt tho 3-2-3 scrum formation. “ It must be recognised that in all games there can be only one governing body and one set of rules for tho proper control of the game. We have given our assurance to the Rugby Football Union (England) that we will adopt the laws of the game as laid down by it. Let us go further, and willingly adopt the formation which all other countries play. New Zealand will lose no prestige from the playing standpoint, and, from a sporting point of view, our action would meet with approval and satisfaction by other Rugbyplaying countries. “ The committee realises that its suggestion may appear _ a radical one to many of our administrators, but the suggestion is put forward in all sincerity, .and the committee trusts that it will have the earnest consideration of unions, so that the whole matter can be fully ventilated at the next annual meeting of tho New Zealand Rugby Union. “The committee does not wish a matter, which to many of our administrators is a vital one, to be considered hurriedly, and on this account has decided to place tho whole of the facts before affiliated unions, and trusts that this attitude will have their wholehearted support.” Mr Harris moved — Thau this meeting of delegates to the Otago Rugby Union is prepared to fall in with the recommendation of the New Zealand Union that a scrum formation of 3-2-3 should be played.” He said that the Canterbury Union had approved of the 3-2-3 scrum formation. One of the reasons that made him offer Ins motion was that for many years the New Zealand Union had been endeavouring to obtain representation on some kind or Imperial Board for the management of Rugby football. It was now proposed that a commission should be set up, subservient tp the International Board. The commission would consist of two representatives from every union in the Empire. The attitude of the Rugby Union of England would, of course, bo affected by the attitude taken up by the New Zealand Union. They could not dictate to a club at present as to how they should play their forwards, but, of course, they could legislate so that 3-2-3 should be the formation of the scrum. He had been in Wellington recently, and the football authorities there were strongly in favour of the 3-2-3 scrum. Mr Mark Nicholls had told him that he was satisfied a 3-2-3 scrum formation would get the ball oftener than a 2-3-2 scrum. Mr W. J. Strong seconded the motion. . . Mr C. Macphec was of the opinion that they should retain their own formation, which he considered had put New Zealand on the map as far as football was concerned. Mr V, G. Cavanagh said he did not think they should sacrifice the style of football they had played for forty or fifty years for the sake of representation on the International Board. He considered the 2-3-2 scrum was the only one satisfactory for back play. Mr Harris said that even if the New Zealand Union did not adopt the 3-2-3 scrum it did not mean they would not have representation on the commission. Mr M’Donald said it seemed by the way the rules were being altered they would have to play the 3-2-3 to get the ball at all. Personally, he was in favour of the 2-3-2 scrum, which he thought made for better back play. He thought it would be a waste of time and money to send a representative Home to the commission.

Mr O’Shea said he approached the question with an open mind. He pointed out that members of the 1928 All Black team had said that in South Africa they had the sorry spectacle of their plavers changing their scrums in an endeavour to get the ball. He thought that what was wrong with their football was that they had seven wingforwards instead of one. Mr J. Mitchell asked if it be compulsory for a team to play the new formation. Could they not play nine forwards as long as the men remained onside? Upon a show of hands being taken the motion was lost by a narrow margin of rotes. WELLINGTON FAVOURS 3*2*3 MARK NIGHOLLS'S VIEWS [Per United Press Association.! WELLINGTON, March 17. The Wellington Rugby Union, at its annual meeting last night, passed a motion favouring three men being played in the front row of the scrum. The old controversy regarding the rival merits of the 2-3-2 and the 3-2-3 formations was revived, and the debate was hotly contested, the voting being fairly even. During the discussion, Mark Nicholls said it was only the outstanding superiority of the New Zealand backs that enabled them to pull through in England in 1924. New Zealand was also at a great disadvantage in South Africa in 1928. Under the new rule the merits of the two systems could he tested. He was satisfied that the 3-2-3 scrum would beat the 2-3-2 every time.