DOGMATISM IN SPORT

Hawera Star, Volume LII, 3 September 1932, Page 8

DOGMATISM IN SPORT

LACK OF REGARD FOR PLAYERS ARE GAMES TAKEN TOO SERIOUSLY? TRIES AND -GOALS IN RUGBY Periodically the question is raised, “Are sports taken too seriously?” They arc, but much less seriously by the players of the game, in general, than by people who have passed the playing-age in the sports Avhicli -the) take seriously. It is almost invariably the looker-on, not the player, who becomes most dogmatically and obstinately argumentative about any aspect of his favourite sport. Generally, the spirit of the players is good—certainly as good as ever it was. The player who takes his sport “seriously” —the word is commonly used in this connection, but it is not quite apt, for here it means, as a rule, no more than, concentration —does so to improve his technique, and thus, by increasing the product of his expenditure of effort, get more enjoyment.from his game, and a higher status in it. There are comparatively few players who tforg.e-t that,., after all, a game is still a game, writes C, in the Christchurch “Sun.” Much greater is the proportion of onlookers who, getting their sport vicariously at secondhand, - shift from the orientation to a game which they had in their own playing days. 1 confess -that at times J, like other onlookers, tend toward dogmatising on a sport, -hut I always try to look at a game from the standpoint of the player, and it is when the interests of the .players themselves are threatened that I feel a touch of impatience with other onlookers whose dogmatism about a sport appears to me to be tainted by a lack of regard for the players. Very seldom are the arguments which arise publicly in sporting affairs, from time to time, originated by the players themselves. Officials and partisians—more often the latter—are usually responsible for them. The small arguments which, naturaiiy, occur sometimes -between piayers are generally localised, and while they are localised they have no material effect on the welfare of the sport. It should be borne in mind, too, that partisanship for a. sport as a whole is very different from partisanship for one club, or one player, or for one rigid way of dealing with any sot of circumstances, in a game, unless that rigid way has been proved by wide experience to bo the best for the game as a w-hole. Regular commentators on sports in several'parts ; of , the world haye. noted in the past year or two, an increasing petulance- of tone, or of pointless satire, among many of -the onlookers who enter into an argument about any point that occurs in the game. Possibly this is due to the general restlessness of the world in post-war conditions. Whatever the cause, it is evident that of late there has been a greater degree of acrimony or of obstinacy in controversies on sports subjects. A more pleasant spirit, a great regard for the game and the player, is highly desirable.

DIVERGENCE IN SPIRIT.

Concurrently with this deterioration of the tone in which controversies are .conducted—and possibly because of the same predisposing influences —there has come an inclination toward a greater divergence in spirit between controllers and players in several sports. Here in: New Zealand the most notable instance of this is in Rugby football. The people chiefly responsible for it are nearly 12,000 miles away, but some of their insistence on a too-rigid control has permeated not a few 'of .the administrators in this Dominion. Many of our referees, too, have caught the contagion; there is ’ overmuch regard for rigid ' control and too little of", the spirit of trying to help the players , to have a g;ood game. This brings about a too-meticulous consideration of the letter, of rules and regulations. There is neither acrimony nor desire to attack a particular referee in'recalling the recent instance, in the. representative Rugby match between South Canterbury and North Otago, in which a referee disallowed a try at the very end of the game, because the winning side did not take a kick- at goal from the try. It is recalled because it illustrates a point of view in refereeing which should be deprecated, and because it is a reminder of one of the facets fo Rugby history.

In this instance the referee was too intent on his interpretation of what appeared to him to b 6 the letter of the laws of Rugby, and too forgetful of the fact that his job is to assist the players to achieve the purpose of the game. And since his own viewpoint of his responsibilities and his interpretation of the laws are common to some other referees, the incident calls for notice, but without any rancour in the. noticing. Originally the only scoring in Rugby football was by the kicking of goals. What is called a try did not count then; when a player touched the ball down in his opponent’s goal he simply gave his own side an opportunity to try to kick a goal; hence the word given to an action which Subsequently became itself a scoring action. In those days matches were not decided on points, but on the majority of goals kicked- In 18i76, however, a change was made. It was decided that matches 'should be won by a majority of goals, or, if the number of goals were equal, or if no goal were kicked, by a majority of tries. But no points were allotted to either goal or try until 1886, when a goal was given the value of three points and a try one point, with a proviso that “when a goal is kicked from a try the goal only is scored.” 'SUBSEQUENT CHANGES.

Subsequent changes have given the try greater value in proportion -to the goal, and have definitely established the principle that a match is decided not by a majority of goals, bufjby a majority of points. No goal, by itself, is now worth more than a try; the scoring of tries has become the main object of the match. The increased importance attached to the scoring of a try, and the lessened importance of the kick at goal from it, is also indicated by the removal of most of the conditions—which appear curious to us nowadays—attached to the way in which the ball had to be taken out from the goal-area for the kick at goal. These changes are mentioned because some people-—and the referee in the instance cited seems to be one of them —have the idea. that the kicking of goals is still the fundamental object of the game. But that has been modi-

fied so much, by giving the try alone no less value that any goal, that it cap scarcely be held to be the fundamental object. That object now is best stated as being the scoring of a majority of points. ’■ . There have been many matches in which teanis that have' scored tries have not attempted to kick goals from these tries, either because the ball had become too wet and heavy or because they needed three more points, not two, for a draw, and they did not wish to take up ,in kicking at goal’ time in which they , might be able : to score a try.. This practice has become almost common enough to give it the force of custom, in the absence of aii explicit direction in the Laws of • Rugby that a kick at goal must be attempted after every try. Apparently .the referees who hold to the opinion that there must be a kick at goal after every try base the opinion on the occurrence of the word “must” in the first line of Law 2Sj dealing with a place-kick at goal after a try—'“the ball must be brought into the field of play,” etc. OBut this law provides only the way in which the kick is to be made when it is taken. Even if the contention of these-re-ferees were sound, what is the penalty? That is provided in Law So itself: “Eor •infringements by the kicker’s team* the kick shall be disallowed.” It is not the try that is to be disallowed. There is too much “must” in the application of the laws of Rugby by some referees, as well as by some administrators. The laws of the game were intended to be much -more permissive than repressive; the ‘’‘musts” and the “shalls” that occur in them mean no more than that either team, or any player in it, is not to do anything which gives it an unfair advantage over the other side. 'Some referees should spend less time in considering what a team “must” do, and more time in considering what they may do themselves, and what their position in the game is. Rugby is a ■*game for players not referees.