RUGBY FOOTBALL

Grey River Argus, 18 April 1929, Page 8

RUGBY FOOTBALL

N.Z. Rules and Customs » Next month delegates from the Rugby Unions up and down the Dominion will meet in Wellington to discuss the. future of the game in thia country. At least, that is th e real reason for the annual meeting of the governing body, although in the many speeches that have been made at these gatherings in the past on e may be pardoned if one ventures the suggestion that the greate r good is lost sight of in the discussion that centres round the competitions for the Ranfurly Shield and parochial matters. ‘‘Touchline” in the “Free Lance” says:—l think the time is opportune for the New Zealand Rugby Union to set down some themes for discussion that will tend in the direction of having one game of Rugby football the world over. In New Zealand and New South Wales dispensations have been granted in connection with the claiming of a fair catch without making the heel mark, the kicking into touch on the full, and the permission to divide the, game into four quarters instead of two halves if required. It seems to me that the time has arrived when these dispensations should be dispensed with, for while they are in force onr players are bound t 0 be a little at sea when opposed to players from other countries.

The principal reason for the suggestion ai this time is the, fact that a British team under the management of James Baxter, an ex-President of the English Rugby Union, is to tour the Dominion next season. It is proposed that a conference be, held under hii, chairmanship while he is in this conn try,, and it seems to me that the New Zealand representatives must be given power to agre,e to whatever proposals are decided upon by the majority ol the delegates at the meeting. THE SCRUPOLAGE.

There'is no one in this country who has a bigger admiration for the New Zealand scrummage formation than 1 have. But when one reads carefully through the rules of Rugby football one is forced to admit that there is no provision made for dealing with such a formation. The centre man of the front row is the pivot of all the rulesj. relating to the scrummage, and I am convinced that for the New Zealanders to get on-side the tLree-two-th(ree or three-three-two method of putting the men down will have to be adopted, W. J. A. Davies, an English international captain, recently published a Look on Rugby tactics, and the chapter on scrummaging is illuminating in that he makes no reference whatever to the two-three-two formation, although he must have seen the 1924 New Zealand team playing it. Evidently he did not take it seriously. This is how Mr Davies sums it up:

“I think we may safely assume that there is more push in the direction the scrum wants, and ought, to go with the three-two-three than with the three-three-two, although there w one less shoulder to push with.” The two-three-two is infinitely the more effective formation, for the simple reason that the whole of the push is towards the pivot of the scrummage all the time. But if the opposition won’t go down that way the fighting for the loose head and the endeavour to cut one man out so that two will go down opposite 'two, makes for end less fighting in the scrummages, and is not in the best interests of the game. EXIT THE WING FORWARD.

If this suggestion is adopted there will be no place for the wing-forward, and considering the way this player pursues hi s illegal tactics these days it would not be much of a loss to the g.'fme if he were discarded. Even jCliff Porter, the 1924 New Zealand captain, who is one or the finest exponents of recent years, finds it extremely difficult to keep ”on-side,” while the less expert wing-forwards have* developed into obstructionists of a more or less varied character. KICKING INTO TOUCH. The tour of the New Zealand team to South Africa taught one outstanding lesson and that was the value of the back who could find touch at thr end of his kick. It also showed that the incessant running up and down the field on the part of the forwards tended to leave them without that little bit of reserve strength tha f counts when the final spurt is needed to push an attack right home. There is a medium in all things and it should be found regarding this kicking into touch. An injudicious use of the touch-line is to be deplored, but in New Zealand we seem to have gone too far in the other direction in discountenancing it altogether. Granted than the game has been livened up considerably and made a bit more entertaining to the spectators, yet many nondescript methods of play have arisen out of it.

In New Zealand a mark is awarded if the ball is fairly caught: in England and South/ Africa a heel-mark has to be made in the ground after the ball is caught. There is just enough time to elapse between the two actions for a player to be upset and the mark not obtained. If the ball i s passed forward, and the player taking it is offside in New Zealand a penalty kick is awarded. In England and South Africa the fir?t breach is the one the referee takes cognisance of and a scrummage is ordered for the pass forward. The?e matters to which I have drawn attention are the only instances in which the game as played in New Zealand and Now South Wales differs from the older countries. Are the Management Committee of the New Zealand Rugby Union prepared to, lead discussion aJqng these lines at the annual meeting? They Trust do so if they are sincere in their desire to see one Rugby game played the world over. And it seems to me that with a strong British team tpuring the Dominion next year the time

ii ripe for the Rugby house in the Dominion to be put in order.