CHANGED THEIR MINDS

Evening Star, Issue 22955, 12 May 1938, Page 19

CHANGED THEIR MINDS

AUCKLAND SUPPORTS INTERNATIONAL RULES FORMER ARDENT CHAMPIONS OF AMENDMENTS Champions of amended rules for years, the Auckland Rugby Union, at a meeting, decided to support the New Zealand Union’s proposal to revert to international rules, writes “ G. E.. 8.” in the ‘ Auckland Star.’ It is a decision that will probably cause a surprise to other major unions, for it was at the instigation of Auckland that the amended rules were introduced. Auckland, and the other unions which have supported a reversion to international rules, are right. Quite a good deal of the blame for the decline of New Zealand football in recent years can be attributed to the amended rules. They have proved more destructive than constructive. In Auckland amended rules became a fetish. The cry was that brighter football must be produced to hold off the challenge of League opposition. So it was that the kick-into-touch rule and the imaginary line behind the scrum were stoutly and persistently advocated. WRITING ON THE WALL. It was a bad day for New Zealand when'the International Rugby Board (or the English Rugby Union, whichever may have been the governing body at the moment), gave New Zealand a special dispensation to play amended rules. Even in those far away days, the writing was on tho wall. Amended rules? Auckland’s imaginary line behind the scrum, designed to give the backs the opportunity of their lives to show all their brightest and best, contributed eventually to a slow but certain falling off of zip and zest among half-backs and first five-eighths. And then, the kick-into-touch, the rule which, after all, is the vital one with which New Zealand is now concerned. Reversion to . international rules this year means, in a nutshell, that either we kick into touch on the full from inside the twenty-five, or we bounce the ball out when wo. kick to touch outside the twenty-five. How far did we get with the kick-into-touch rule? It produced a crop of backs who could not kick accurately and well with on© foot, let alone two; it evolved a game which gave us the shining, seagull forwards who were never taught to shove and never tried to. One of the strongest arguments against amended rules was the consistently brilliant exhibitions of the Springbok team which toured New.. Zealand last year, and if further argument is needed, the attractive football, of the 1930 British team. Here were two teams whose members were born and bred under international rules. Did international rules cramp their style, did they have a ponderous unimaginative set of backs who kicked to the line every time they got the ball? Hardly I These were the teams which played some of the most attractive football, and under international rules, that pleased even the most harsh bank critics. They played with an abandon that was a delight. Did they worry about the kick-into-touch rules, did they worry about the imaginary line ‘behind : the“scrum; did Thdy worry’ about replacements, did they worry about anything but playing football as it should be played? Her© is thd crux of the wholo matter. An International Rugby Board controls the game wherever it is played. That board makes the laws, dictates just what rules must be observed. Players from other lands can turn on fireworks under the rules laid down by the International Board, why not New Zealand P Back to the schools, back to the fundamentals. That’s what New Zealand must do.