RUGBY FÒOTBALL South African Tour in 1948

Greymouth Evening Star, 24 April 1946, Page 8

RUGBY FÒOTBALL South African Tour in 1948

“An invitation has been extended by the .Sotith African .Rhgby football Board for a New Zealand team to tour South Africa in the near fuhire, to take the place of the tour which was arranged, for 1939, and which had to be postponed when war broke out, and the council has tentatively agreed to accept the invitation for the ,1948 season, silbject to shipping arid other arrangements being favourable,” states the report of the New Zealand Rugby Union, to be presented at the annual meeting on May 2. “A request has been received from the .Fiji, jftu’gby Union id'r.a visit by a Maori team in the 1947. season. The matter will be further discussed by the incoming council.” ._ The report says that this season’s matches will serve as a prelude to the trials in 1947 f6’r the selection of the teaih ‘to tour South Africa. Mention is made of the union’s deep regret that such a large number of Rugby players will not return to play again on New Zealand playing fields. Representative in England. “Since 1922 Mr. Cecil J. Wray has been the union’s . representative on the Rugby Football Union (England) arid, he has indeed been a mostworthy representative, and at all times kept the executive well posted in all matters pertaining to the game,” the report continues. “He has ‘intimated his desire to retire this year, and we are deeply indebted to him for the valued services rendered over the last 25 years. Opportunity has been taken of the visit to England of Mr..J. H. Parker, a member of the executive, to make a presentation to Mr. Wray upon his retirement. “The year’s working,” says the report, “resulted in a profit of £lBl 8/1, which must be considered very satisfactory. Most of the affiliated unions, if not all, have shown a buoyancy in revenue and, with the Cessation of hostilities, and petrol restrictions likely to be removed at an early date, all unions should be back on a sound financial basis. During the year the council wiped off the sum of £1175/4/9 on account of interest owing by unions which were unable to meet their obligations on account of war conditions.” North v. South Match. The balance-sheet shows that the North Island v. South Island match, which drew a record crowd at Auckland, had a gross gate of £2493/16/3. Of that sum £316/16/6 was paid in amusement tax, ground rent accounted for £690/7/3, and other charges on the takings amounted to £228/6/6. The New Zealand Union received £1258/6/-, and when the cost of assembling the team (£295 5/5). the. selectors’ expenses (£B9 10/9), and stiridry expenses had been met, the profit on the match was £862/14/1. . . n , . 'The union received- £99/2/- in donations from ‘affiliated..unions and £1142/9/1 in interest on loans to unions, and. on investments and Post Office and National Savings accounts. Expenditure included £BO5 for school grants, with another £l9O given towards school tournaments. Meetings of the council cost £204 6/5, and the expenses of delegates to the annual meeting totalled £lO6 11/-. C t■ u The accumulated funds, of which £28,911. 7/11 is on loan to unions, amount to £'43,540/5/7. New Rugbv Rule a “Let-out” A new Rugby rule has been drafted, to overcome inefficiency of scrummaging. Yet when explaining the rule to Wellington referees, Mr. H. B. Simmonds admitted that the possibility of several scrums going down for One infringement had been increased.

Previously, if the half-back or hooker was at fault when the ball repeatedly came out the side of the scrum, the referee was empowered to penalise. Now he can only order the ball to be put in again. The rule as explained by Mr. Simmonds also allows the middle hooker to raise his foot furtherest away from the ball the moment the ball has left the half-back’s hand. But he must not touch the ball until it has hit the ground in the scrum.

Must Touch Ball First. As the front-row forward on the side at which the ball is being put in is not permitted to raise his feet until the middle-hooker has touched the ball, the gap at the side of the scrum is going to be left wide open. A miss-hook, and the ball would come shooting out the open side again. If the side-hooker could block the aperture in time to stop the ball from going out again—and he is allowed to do so only after the middle-hooker has touched the ball—then he would be splitting a fraction of a second. If the ball came out again, no penalty is to be awarded; the ball has to be put in again. A referee asked Mr. Simmonds "how often were they to allow that to happen—All day? Mr. Simmonds said he supposed so. “We know it was necessary to penalise a hooker before the ball touched the ground,” said Mr. Simmonds. “Now the only illegal, lifting will be before the ball leaves the half-back’s hands.

' “The middle man will try and reach the ball as early as possible. The result frequently will be that the ball will be kicked out the side of the scrum. Nevertheless, the ball has to be put in again.” Mr. Simmonds added that, contrary to popular opinion, the South African mode of hooking the ball out. between front- and middle-row forwards was still permitted. Mr. Simmonds stressed the way in which the half-back should put the ball in. The half-back may choose the side from which to put the ball in. But once he has taken up his'position he must put the ball in immediately. If not, he could be.penalised for wasting time. The half was not permitted to stand at one side and change his mind and dart round to the other. Also he could not wait for his straggling forwards to scrum down. The ball had to be put in without delay. Position Clearer. “I consider that the new rule is the greatest let out for referees that was* /ever introduced into the hand-book,” commented Mr. Simmonds. “It makes the referee’s position a lot clearer. Previously it was left to their own discretion to decide whether a half was wasting time oi' not.” ■' The question was raised concerning j the speed the ball was r pnt in. ““Moderate,” said Mr. Simmonds. “As the

half is compelled to throw the ball from below his knees, a throw that was too slow woud not land in the required area. If the throw was too fast a penalty could be awarded. “The ball had to touch the ground beyond one foot of the nearest player of each front row. “Whether this change is a genuine or satisfactory attempt to overcome the difficulties of our scrummaging, remains to be seen,” said Mr. Simmonds. “We should give it a fair trial, by expounding its advantages rather than looking for its deficiencies.”