RUGBY GLEANINGS

Hawera Star, Volume XLIX, 31 August 1929, Page 12

RUGBY GLEANINGS

WAIRARAPA’S HOLD. RANFURLY SHIELD. FOURTH. CHALLENGE MET. The Wairarapa combination held out another challenge for the Ranfurly Shield—the fourth of the season —oil Wednesday, when the touring Canterbury team had to accept a 17—12 defeat. In the earlier three games for the shield this year Wairarapa def ru - ed Hawke’s Bay by 10 t ; o 6 on July 20, Auckland by 17 to 14 on August 10, and Manawhenus. bv 37 to 16 on August 17. . Wairarapa’s first successful bid for the trophy, was on June 3, of the 1927 season, when that union defeated Hawke’s Bay by 15 points to 11, and terminated the Mapies’ long list ol shield winning games, Which had eommcnced with its defeat of Wellington in 1922. A short time later, July 9, Hawke’s Bay did regain the shield: m a match, woii by 21 points to 10, but kadi to return it to Wairarapa when a protest, questioning the residential qualification of a Bay player, was up - held. On August 6of that year Wairarapa unexpectedly lost the trophy by 18 points t.O 16 to Manawhenua, which in turn lost it to Canterbury on September 7, when the southern team de- j feated Manawhenua by 17 to 6. , Canterbury’s possession was also short-lived for, after repelling only one challenge, that of South Canterbury, in the first game of the 1928 season for the trophy, Canterbury were beaten a few days later by Wairarapa, the scores being S —7. In ensuing challenge games -that year Wairarapa defeated Bush Union by 57 to 11, Marlborough b v 25 to 8, Wellington by 9to 3, and Manawhenua, by 31 to 10. As already mentioned, four further wins have been added by Wairarapa in shield games during the current season. Further challenge matches, conditional on Wairarapa retaining the trophy, have been listed as follows: — August 31—v. Southland, at Carterton. September 7 —-v. Otago, at Masterton. September 14 —v. Waikato, at Master-

ton. September 25—v. Wanganui, at Carterton.

CURRENT COMMENT. WELLINGTON CHAMPIONS. For the second year in succession University has won the senior A grade championship at Wellington, and this year held a margin of G points from the runners-up, Athletic. In the. list of senior champions given below it is interesting to note that Petone and Poneke, both of whom have a long list of successes behind them, have not won the championship during the last four years, although they have generally been well in the running. The championship has been won as follows: 1882, Athletic; 1883, Wellington and Greytown, draw; 1884, Athletic; 1885, Wellington; 1886, Poneke; 1887, Poneke;'lßßS, Poneke; 1889, Poneke; 1890, Wellington; 1891, Athletic; 1892, Poneke; 1893, Poneke; 1894, Poneke; 1895, Petone; 1896, Melrose; 1897, Melrose; 1898, Melrose; 1899, Petone; 1900, Melrose; 1901, Wellington; 1902, Melrose; 1903, Poneke; 1904 Petone; 1905, Petone; 1906, Petone; 1907, Petone; 1908, Melrose; 1909, Poneke; 1910, Oriental; 1911, Athletic; 1912, Athletic; 1913, Athletic; 1914, Athletic and Wellington, tie; 1915, Athletic;' 1916, Petone; 1917, Petone; 1918, Poneke; 1919, Poneke; 1920, Petone; 1921, Poneke; 1922, Petone; 1923, Petone; 1924, Petone; 1925, Poneke; 1926, Athletic; 1927, Old Boys; 1928, University; 1929, University.

“FOOL RULES,” Tile Canterbury' Union recently objected to Auckland referees controlling games in which their representative team takes part. It has been an open secret that for some years past the Auckland Union has been playing under rules which have not even been sanctioned by the management committee of the New Zealand Union (states a Wellington writer). It is not so very long ago that the authorities of a secondary; school in Auckland wrote to. the Auckland Union humbly requesting permission for their school to be allowed to play Rugby under the laws as laid down by the International Board, and the reasonable request was promptly refused. For some years past, the New Zealand Rugby Union has. 'been striving to secure representation upon the International Board, but how can it expect this -wiien. it. keeps ■tinkering ■with the laws O'f the game, and even allows some of their affiliated unions- to make laws to suit themselves? Such a state of affairs could not foe expected to continue, and it came as no surprise when the Canterbury Union requested that an outside referee should be appointed to control the match between Canterbury and Auckland at Auckland to-day. The Auckland referees were naturally chagrined at Canterbury's decision, but as one of _ the members of the management committee of the Canterbury Union remarked, “the Canterbury team cannot expect a fair deal from referees Who have been controlling games under the Ancleland rules, which are ‘fool rules.’ - ’ This speaker put the position in a nutshell. Thera should foe one uniform set of rules for Rugby football, whether a match is being played at Auckland, Newcastle, Durban, Edinburgh, Dublin, Cardiff, London, or Paris.

STANDING OFFSIDE. A decision given by Air G. Bradley in Die Univensdty-Alarist game at Athletic Park, Wellington, recently, did not find 'approval with a, section of the spectators. When. a. somuninago was formed near the Alar is t line, the Afarist centre-three-quarter was. standing offside, and lie was still in that position, not very far from the posts, will oh the ball was put in. The referee thereupon blew hi,s whistle, and, going over to where tjhe oentro-tbre e-q uarter was standing, lie awarded a free-kick at that spot. The decision was correct. It is possiible for players to stand off-side without committing a breach, but not during the progress of a scrummage or line-out. “PASSIVE OBSTRUCTION. A correspondent to the Wellington “Evening Post” writes: “The members of the University third A team met with a new ruling in their match against Institute at Kiilbirnie. Institute were' awarded a free kick in front of the University goal and four Univer-

sity forwards stood on the mark with their hands clasped behind their necks. The ball, struck one of the forwards in i.ue small of the back, and the referee -ruled that the J kick be taken again. The University captain, H. W. Osborn, asked the official for his ruling and was toild that it was a case of ‘passive obstruction’ that the forwards on the mark had no right to hold their hands in the manner described. He agreed that the men had .not moved, but stated that the latest ruling stated that player,s on the mark must hold their hands Iby their sides and face the ball. ’ ’

It is a common practice for players on the mark when attempts are being made to kick penalty goals to stand as indicated by the correspondent. In doing so ,however, they run the risk of conceding another kick to their opponents. The laws of the game make it clear that when a penalty kick is being taken “the opposing side must remain passive on or behind a line through the mark parallel to the goalline. until the kick lias been taken.” One of the notes of the law states that, “passive” means that a. player must remain standing with his hands by his sides, and must not in anv way attempt to put the kicker qff his kick. There is nothing to suggest, that a player must face' the ball. PLAYED BACK RULING.

The accuracy of a ruling regarding an incident which was reported to have occurred in the Hawke’s Bay-Wairarapa Ranfurly Shield match at Masterton recently, • was questioned by a corresponlent to the Wellington “Post.” “1 was not present at the match,” stated thei correspondent, “but from an account which has been published it seems that, during a rush by Hawke’s Bay, Cooke (Wairarapa) from fifteen yards infield kicked the ball back behind the Wairarapa line and it was either forced down or went over the dead-ball line. Apparently Hawke’s Bay were going well for a try at that stage. The question was raised : If the referee had seen Cooke kick the ball could he have awarded a penalty try to Hawke’s Bay ? To., this the following reply was given: ‘Yes; Cooke s action undoubtedly prevented a try being scored, and if the referee was of that opinion lie eoull have awarded it.' Is that reling correct?’.’ The question is covered Dy Law 32, which states: “If a defending player wilfully kick, pass, knock Q.r cany the ball back into his own in-goal and it be there made dead, except as the result of a try, the ball shall be brought back and scrummaged at the spot whence it was kicked, passed, knocked or carried back. A note to the law states: “The scrummage must be awarded at the spot whence- the ball was kicked, passed, knocked or carried back, no matter what distance from the goal-line this may be.” “He would be a pretty game referee if he dad award a try,” remarked Mr A. C. Kotto when the question was raised at last week’s meeting of the New Zealand Rugby Union’s Management Committee.

Members agreed that the answer to the question was : ‘ ‘No.,’ ’

SQUEALERS SQUASHED. The Sydney “Bulletin” says : Regrettable as was the severe injury sustained by Cyril Towers in the first Test against the All Blacks, the “squealing” indulged in by a section of the Sydney Press was oven worse. Ugly knocks are unavoidable in the game,’ and no spectator of the tig match has been able to come forward and say lie saw any deliberate attempt to lay out the tricky Australian threequarter, which is 'what one journal actually asserted was the case. Inter-Dominion visits like that of the All Blacks are supposed to breed a spirit of camaraderie, aud usually do. Wild Press criticism and accusations of the sort cited certainly act in the opposite direction. COSMOPOLITAN AUSSIE.

Is there a greater cosmopolitan in football than Tom Lawton, whose name will go down in, history as having led Australia to victory against New Zealand in the whole of a scries of Tests? The Rhodes sdliolar lias played the game with distinction in England, Ireland, Scotland. Wales, France, Germany, Holland, Spain, Czechoslovakia, Canada, New Zealand, and in three Australian States. He played in France with the Waratabs and in the other foreign countries with the Barbarians (a team organised in England and composed of internationals) and Oxford University. It is coincidental that in New Zealand in 1925, he was. captain of the Albion team, which lilburne (New Zealand’s great five-eighth) non- leads. A unique personality in sport and other spheres, a more detailed record of Tom Lawton's career would, be a, revelation. RAMSON’S CENTURY.

An extraordinary record iu goalkick-j has been made (by F. S. Ramson, centre-three-quarter in the Victoria University College team which won the senior championship in, Wellington. In 13 matches Ramson has kicked 111 points, or almost half of the points scored by his side. Tliis is said to be the first occasion on which a Wellington player has “scored a century” since the war. J. A. Malcolm, former Wellington repretative full-back, and Mark NichPlls have both been in the 80’is and Malcolm once -reached the ,90’s. A curious side of Ramson's performance is that the team in which, he play« has a very strong hack-line, including three All Blacks and two provincial representatives, and is a fine try-getting combination. Ramson is also Australian and New Zealand 440 yards hu-rdles champion. MILL’S QUALIFICATION. Letters of explanation regarding the inclusion of J. Mill .in the Wairarapa team against the Bush Districts this season before he had completed the necessary residential qualification worej received at a recent meeting of the! New Zealand Rugby Union's management committee from the Wairarapa and Bush Districts Rugby Union. It had been recognised that Mill was ineligible, but he was played owing to a special request by the Bush Union, which was keen to see him, along with the other leading players in the Wairarapa, included in the team for educational purposes. In the two games in which he played the Ranfurly Shield was not at stake.

TJie explanations wore received, but it was decided to point out to both unions that the rules, must be observed in the future. At a recent meeting of the Hawke’s Bay Rugby Union it was decided to write to the New Zealand Union; and ask for a copy of the decision.