RUGBY NOTES.

Grey River Argus, 24 August 1928, Page 2 (Supplement)

RUGBY NOTES.

NORTH ISLAND V. SOUTH ISLAND. The twenty-fouth trial of strength between the North Island and HuSouth Island took jdace at Christ church on Saturday ami resulted in an unexpected victory for the Southerners by 15 points to 14. In these games the North have now won thirteen times and the South nine, leaving the two remaining matches drawn. As South Island teams had been rather badly battered about in this season’s interprovincial games it was expected that the Northerners would have a rather easy win. The Southerners, however, started off with great heart on Saturday. Snodgrass, the Nelson winger, secured the ball at half-way and. outpacing Anderson and Porter, shook off a tackle by Roach to score a sensational try. The Nelson man makes a habit of doing eccentric things like this. Last year in the inter-island game at Wellington the ball was kicked out to him op the blind side. Clapping on the full pace he raced right across the field and started rt passing rush which brought a score. Would that wc had a few more unorthodox players of Snodgrass’s stamp. It is pleasing to se*e that the selectors have included him in the New Zealand team to meet New South Wales in the first Test. Bradanovitch, the Otago University five-eighths, followed Snodgrass’s exhilarating example by dropping a neat field goal for tli e South Island. Rob inson and Freitas (the West Coaster) als 0 scored tries for the Southerners. Cooke was the outstanding player on the Northern . side, and would have done even better had the two Poverty Bay men, Bramwell (half) and Langlands (five-eighth;), been on their game. Cooke made many clever openings, and [these brought tries to Anderson (Waikato), Carlson (Wanganui) Finlayson and Cookp. himself. Langlands lost the malch for the x .Nnrth island by failing ,to convert a try which Cooke scored under the posts. Record of Contests. Following ar c the results of the matches played between the tw () islands. It will be noted that, with theexccption of the war years, the fixture* has been, an annual one since 1992:—

No wonder the All Blacks were unable to get the ball from the scrums in the earlier matches in South Africa. The Springboks’ scrumming tactics are so peculiar that a. correspondent wrote to the “Rand Daily Alai!” on June 14 challenging their fairness. He wrote: —A great deal has been written regarding the failure of the All Blacks pack to hold their own in the tight ■ scrums. They, themselves, by changing their formation, admit as much. Now.'why is it that our South African packs have been so singularly successful? It is not that they have greater weight nor is it that their

hooking is superior. Judging by what was visible from the grandstands on Saturday last, we must confess that certain aspects Of our scrum work are illegal. For example, .when the New Zealand players had two men in the front row, the ball was repeatedly hooked before it passed outside the New Zealand hooker. This is inevitable while South African hookers use the diagonal hook, and thus meet the ball right in front of the outside New Zealand hooker, in this way preventing the ball from passing him. As the ball is not legally in the scrum until it has passed an outside front row player of both teams, then clearly the Transvaal hooker on Saturday prevented the ball from entering the scrum, and should have been penalised instead of being allowed to continue hooking illegally. I realise that South African referees will find it difficult to penalise players who, by force of habit and not perhaps intentionally, break a law of hooking when playing against a 2—3 —2 pack. Nevertheless, they must in fairness to the visitors insist on the ball being right in the scrum before it is hooked. Scrum-Half’s Play. Again, it is a rule that the scrumhalf should put the ball into the scrum immediately a scrum is formed. What happened last Saturday? Repeatedly the Transvaal scruin-half waited some seconds before he did so. At the beginning of many of the scrums the All Blacks were pushing o ff the Transvaal pack; but as the Transvaal scrumi.alf did not put th c ball in at once, they got no advantage from their push. He waited until the home side had gained from the reaction that naturally follows a push, and while the Transvaal pack were pushing successfully he threw the ball in, ami, as it appeared often, int (> the feet of his own hookers. Now had the referee penalised the scrum half instead of assisting him to delay by himself putting th e s<*rum straight, he would have been fairer to the All Blacks. These two aspects of South African scrumming arc undoubtedly illegal, and it will be well if wc remov e what will be a just cause of complaint on the part of our visitors. Let the ball pass the outside New Zealand hooker, as it should, and then we shall be able to judge whether our scrummaging is superior. This is a matter referees must seriously take in hand. We want to beat the All Blacks, but we must do so bv methods that’ are impeachable.

RESULTS TO DATE. Date' 1‘laved at Won l»v 1897—Wellington Norf h 1(5-3 1902 Wellington South 20-14 1903—Auckland Soul h 12 5 -'004— Drawn KUl.i—Willington Nort h 26-0 1906 —Wellington North 9-.") 1907—Christchurch North 11-0 190.8—Wellington Nori h 12-5 1909—Welling! on South 19 11 1910—Christchurch Sout k 14-10 J 911 —Wellington North 19-9 1912—Napier North 12-8 1913 —Ch ristchurch South . *’5-0 1914—Wellington South 8-0 1919 —Well i n gt o n North. 28-11 1920—Wellington Nort h 12-3 1921—Christchurch Nort h 28-13 193a Auckland Sout h 9-8 1923—Wellington Drawn 6 6 1924—Wellingt on North 39-8 J 925—Invercargill North Ki-5 1926—Wellington North. 41-9 1927—Wellington South 31-30 1928—C h ri st c h u rc h South 15-14