RUGBY RULES

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 175, 9 July 1932, Page 2

RUGBY RULES

NON-REPLACEMENT QUESTION ENGLISH UNION'S STAND. ATTITUDE OF HAWKE’S BAY The English Rugby Union’s attitudi regarding the non-placement of injured players in Rugby matches and the remaining of teams on the ground at half time was adversely criticised by the management committee of the Hawke’s Bay Rugby Union last night when it was agreed to forward a pro test to the English Union concerning its insistence on the non-replacement of players, providing it is established that the existing law relating to this feature of the game is not in accord ance with the general wish of followers of the game in New Zealand.

The following letter by the president of the Hawke’s Bay Union, Mr W. T Foster, on the matter was considered by the committee together with similar letters which have previously been published from the Otago and New Zealand unions.—“l feel that this union should, in conjunction with many other unions, enter an emphatic protest against the dictatorial attitude adopted by the English Union. I am referring to the re cent decisions with regard to the re placement of injured players and to tin necessity of staying on the field at half time. The latter question is to m' irritating and frivoteus and indicatethat the English Union would treat players as so many children. I would support any rule based on common sense, but I fail to see any ground whatever for insisting on so trivial a detail. INVITING ROUHG PLAY. “Tho matter of the replacement of players is in a different category. To my mind it strikes at the root of sportsmanship. It is useless to quibble as to the meaning of the actual words in which the rule is expressed. I have been given to understand that when the English team was here two years ago some members actuality argued in all seriousness that a player who was not playing well would malinger if he knew that a substitute could be used who might possibly improv© tho team’s chances of success. To mo such an action is unthinkable, whereas I have definitely known of at least one case where a team’s star player was deliberately knocked out even though he could be' replaced. Surely non-replace-ment is inviting rough play in the hopes of reducing the strength of ths opposition.” The chairman, Mr J. W. Norrie, stated that two years ago at the annual meeting of the New Zealand Union, when the question of adhering to tho rule was fully discussed, the chairman had given a ruling that as the leaving of tho field at half time and the replacement of injured players were matters of custom it would not be necessary to adhere to this portion of tho English rules. If the delegates had known that tho present position would arise they would not Lave agreed as easily as they did. ENGLISH CONSERVATISM. Mr Norrie was not in agreement with the suggestion that had been made that New Zealand should be granted a dispensation, and he did not think that t.he English Union should have taken the action it had without first referring it to the New Zealand Union. He did not, see any argument in favour of their ruling, as the replacement of players had never been abused and the question of players remaining on the field at half-time was just a matter of English conservatism.

When the annual meeting of delegates was discussing the rules, said Mr G. A. Maddison, the president was asked what was tho law and he had replied that it was only a matter of custom as far as these two items were concerned. He said that it had been decided to ask tho English union to submit its new laws to New Zealand, but this had never been done and he thought that a protest should be made to the International Board.

“It is the only thing that mars the international fabric,” said Mr Maddison. “We have every cause to be aggrieved at the attitude of the English body at the present time. If the body governing golf desires to make a new rule it gets the co operation of all the different countries concerned. We are entitled to that consideration and there would be much more co-operation if they were more reasonable.”

Mr Maddison held that the law relating to the replacement of players was not definite and could be read to . mean that a team could not go on a field with more than fifteen players. It had been forced down the throats of people in New Zealand by the English team when they were in tho Dominion that the game was taken too seriously here, but he thought that the new. rule made the game such, as it was not sporting to have a team whose numbers were weakened by say five or six injured players being beaten by another with the full fifteen. ALIEN TO SPORTSMANSHIP. “It is absolutely puerile to my mind and alien to all the spirit of sportsmanship,’’ said Mr Maddison in making the suggestion that it be ascertained from the New Zeland union tho interpretation of the law regarding replacement. “It is really scandalous that they should treat what is after all only a game in this way,” said Mr Foster. “Their argument is: ‘Play it our way or not at all,’ ” said Mr Norrie. It was then decided, on Mr Maddison's motion, to ask the New Zealand union for an interpretation of tho law referring to tho non-replacement of injured players, and when this was available io send a protest to the English union through the New Zealand Union against its attitude in insisting that New Zealand shall not have the right to replace injured players.