RUGBY

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXX, Issue 12263, 26 May 1934, Page 9

RUGBY

“SCRUMMAGE RULE IMPERATIVE.”

Referring to hooking the hall and scrummage rules in Rugby, Mr S. F Wilson, former president of the New Zealand Rugby Union, and an e?president of the Canterbury Hugh -r Unlotn, writes to tho Christohweh '“'Star” as follows: “An article in the ‘star contributed hy ‘W.R Is' is '• think, in almost every respect wrong. First lie says that every New Zealand enthusiast was of the opinion that the hooking rule was framed specially to force New Zealand to abandon her two-three-two formation. Our grievance is quite tho contrary. Wo contend that, having no representation on the International Board, our point of view in regard to framing now rules is entirely ignored. ‘W.R-.K.’ says that tho rule (15) is theoretically perfect. My opinion is that it is inoperative both legally and practically. The only rule in the hook defilning a scrummage (and it has been in, existence for about 40 years) is Rule (2), which roads: ‘A scrummage is formed by one or more players from each side closing round the hall when it is on the ground or by their closing round waiting for the ball to be put in.’

‘Rule (15) is purely a machinery clause, and is governed by Rule (2), and just how one man in the front can hook a hall with his fourth foot, I leave to my theoretical friend, ‘W.R.If.’.

‘Presuming the above contention to ho wrong, the new rule is not good, and with the human element concerned is irritable and impossible of correct application. The six front-row men are in the same position as sprinters standing on the mark, and so on their toes. The first movement of the starter will cause them to break. It is not reasonable to think that six men with the weight applied can wait until the ball is past the third foot. Again, immediately the scrum moves, they probably lose sight of the ball, and it is a case of every man for himself. No referee- can sec the hall in a moving scrum when it has passed two feet, so for this reason alone tho rule must be useless. “There are about fifty scrums in every game, and it is essential that tho rule should be simple and easy to operate. In my playing days, when Rule (2) operated without any trimmings, the referees insisted on the ball going in immediately a couple of men were down, and so long “as tho ball was placed so as to give each side an cqunll chance all was well. After all, that should be the object of every rule. The fact is that England has allowed, through bad refereeing the centre player in the front to swing and place his legs across the channel of the scrum (they did this in 1924), and things became so' chaotic that the theorists evolved the present rule, forgetting entirely Rule (2).”