WING FORWARD ABOLISHED

Evening Star, Issue 21079, 16 April 1932, Page 19

WING FORWARD ABOLISHED

- - DELEGATES FAVOUR 3-2-3 SCRUM NEW ZEALAND UNION'S DECISION [P£it United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, April 15. At the animal meeting of delegates to the New Zealand Rugby Union today, the chairman (Mr S. !}. Dean) formally moved that for’the sake ot uniformity the conference adopt the three front row scrum and dispense with the wing forward. Mr A. C. Kitto seconded the motion and stated that he was firmly convinced that the new formation would provide a better class of game. He hoped that the debate would be along the lines ot uniformity, and not on the respective merits, or demerits, of the three front row as against the two (rout row. He did not think that the two-man front would have any chance with the throe front row under the new interpretation of scrummaging laws. There was no intention of placing a penalty on any team playing the two front row. He admitted that the 2-3-2 scrum was more compact. What he wanted to emphasise was that New Zealand should show that she had forwards and that they could play under any scrummaging formation. “Some clubs, unfortunately, have made up their minds that whatever the conference did they would maintain the 2-3-2 scrum,” said Mr J. M'Leod (Taranaki). That was not a fair point of view to adopt. The chief point, he considered,' was that the wing forward should be eliminated. The wing forward had proved destructive overseas, and his elimination would save trouble. He hoped that the conference would give a strong expression of opinion in favour of the abolition of the wing forward. Mr A. J. Griffiths (Wellington) said that he was one of the old 2-3-2 die-i hards, but after the Petone : Poneke 3-2-3 scrufnmage demonstration on Saturdav he had been converted to the 3-2-3 formation. He saw for himself in this game that the game would be ■ just as good with the three front row as with the two. Mr C. 6. Porter (Wellington) expressed the opinion that in gaining uniformity the dominion had to_ bo sure of adopting the right formation. He then detailed the methods adopted in hooking, and claimed that the 2-3-2 formation had an advantage over the three front row. He would pack a two front row with the teams he would be coaching this season. He enlightened the conference on a conversation % he had with Mr Wakefield, in which the English international stated that he would make the middle man in the three front row keep his feet on the ground, otherwise he would put him off the field. Mr Porter concluded by saying that if the 2-3-2 formation were packed on a loose head the three front row would .never hook the ball. Mr H. Harris (Otago): But two couldn’t pack on a loose head. Scrums ( would never get set. Mr W. J. Wallace (Management Committee) explained the advantages of the three front row over the two front row. He was absolutely convinced that the three front row would heat the two front row. , He traced the history of the game since the beginning of the century, and demonstrated how the wing forward had spoilt tho development of hack play in tne dominion. Messrs AT. Nicholls and Porter then gave blackboard demonstrations on scrummaging formation ami hooking. By 50 votes to 21 it was decided to recommend to the affiliated unions the three front row scrum and to abolish the wing forward.