RUGBY SCRUM

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 36, 26 January 1932, Page 3

RUGBY SCRUM

CHANGE IN RULES HOOKING THE BALL. MR. MEREDITH’S VIEWS. “The amendment by the English authorities of the scrum rule regarding the time when the ball may be hooked is a startling innovation to New Zealanders,” sair Mr. V. R. Meredith, wellknown Rugby authority, and former Auckland selector and one-time Wellington player, in an interview in Auckland. “Whatever the object of the altsratio i may De, it is the end of the scrum formation always adopted and successfully used by New Zealand teams—-2-3-2. It has long been known that British teams did not like the New Zeaai d disposition of its teams. Last year New Zealand agreed to play strictly according to English rules and to waive all dispensations to play certain local amendments adopted in Now Zealand and Australia. Many thought that this unqualified assent, without some definite assurance as to representation on the controlling body ia England, was a mistake. Probably if it had been thought that such a drastic amendment as this was to be made in existing rules a great deal more hesitation would have been displayed on the part of many unions. TO FORCE NEW ZEALAND? “One docs not care to think that this alteration was made deliberately to force New Zealand to abandon the 2-3-2 formation and the wing-forward, after New Zealand had agreed to conform rigidly to the English rules, whatever they were. Probably it may be suggested that the rule was intended to ensure that the ball was in the middle of the serum before it could be hooked. If so, the rule could quite easily have been drawn in other terms to effect this, without specifying the number oi feet that have to be passed as three. Putting the best aspects on it, the rule was drawn with an absolute disregard of New Zealand views and with full appreciation that New Zealand could never, under the rule, play their formation, and must adopt the English method of scrummaging, whether they agree with it or not. “However, there it is, and it is now idle to discuss the respective merits of the two formations. Each, of course, has its merits in particular directions, but the cold fact remains that the New' Zealand disposition of its fifteen on the field has over a long period of years been universally successful and New Zealand has no option now but to abandon it. WILL NOT STOP OBSTRUCTION. “The hope that this new formation will eliminate the obstructive type of player has no foundation. Football is a game of attack and defence. One phase is as important as the other. If one side has a brilliant set of attacking players, the other side must smother the mif possible. Wing-forward play is one method with us. Other teams use the pack breakaways. Inside backs standing right up on defence on their particular opponents are the most effective of all in smothering. If it is desired to prevent smothering of back play, then tho only means to effect it is an amendment of the off-side rule similar to tho one advocated by the Auckland Union. Nothing else can achieve it. “The main objection to the rule, ns amended, is that it precludes any side from disposing of its players in what it considers tho most effective manner. A captain or coach should bo able to make any alteration in his scrum or back formation he thinks fit, to suit the particular strength of his own side or that of his opponents. INSIDE BACK PLAY. “Mr. Doan is reported as saying that the abolition of the wing-forward will improve our inside back play. I think he must have been misreported, because no one with any knowlerdge of New Zealand football could possibly make such a remark. To mention just a few prominent inside backs of the past (the list is not intended to be in any way exclusive) who had the faculty of penetrating the defence—a faculty so glaringly lacking in the men recently selected to represent New Zealand—l name Elliott, Keogh, Duncan, Wood, Stead, Hunter. All of those men played against one, and most of them against two, w’ing-forwards. It was probably the alert opposition that sharpened them up. In any event, the backs of those days never asked for certain players to be put out of action to enable them to bo brilliant. The fact of there not being any inside backs with penetrative ability at present representing New Zealand is probably due to the fault of selection. The attacking player has been discouraged, and preference mostly given to players with all the qualifications of a full-back but none of anything else. “Anyhow, Now Zealand must alter its methods and evolve new methods arising out 6? the altered serum. Undoubtedly, however, the breakaway or some other form of obstructionist will be developed.”