RUGBY UNION TEAMS OF THIRTEEN

Manawatu Times, Volume 64, Issue 80, 5 April 1939, Page 8

RUGBY UNION TEAMS OF THIRTEEN

REVIVAL OF DIAMOND SCRUM

ADVOCACY IN AUSTRALIA AND ALSO FROM ENGLAND

TEe reduction, of a Rugby Union team from 15 to 13 men has been revived in Australia and is now being made in England—six backs and seven forwards.

heads in England are conservative. Any radical change in law, most of all one that the man who watches from the paying stands might favour, may be regarded as a scourge. The late Mr. James Baxter, who managed the last British team out here, a fine sportsman, was an example of the immovable conservative in a changing world. Actually, what would be the effect of the Rugby Union playing the seven scrummage—2 3 2? Two in front against two, as it used to be in the New Zealand matches in Australia before the tour of the 1899 British team, while lifting of a foot before the ball is put in, barred rigidly, provides for clean hooking and heeling at lightning speed. It was a retrograde move when the international authorities practically barred the New' Zealand scrum formation. The 2—3—2 as played by the greatest of All Black teams gave us Rugby that has never been equalled since. If the old New Zealand pack (even without a wing forward) be revived and made compulsory, we should see the end of a lot of rough, aimless, heavy work. The 2—3—2 pack is so constituted that the ball can quickly pass through a channel in the centre of the scrum. This would make for cleaner and faster hooking. With three of the main defects of Rugby Union (slow' scrum w'ork, dull forward clashes, and move-destroying tackling by breakaways) eliminated the game would be an even stronger rival to Rugby League in the public’s esteem, especially as the Union code has that great attraction, the line-out, while the League has not. When R.ugby was first originated, huge crowds, even hundreds, comprised each team. Since then, there has been a whittling down of the number in a team. It was 18 a side for a time before the commencement of this century. Then it became 15. Now it seems possible that a further move will be made to 13. While one would not say for a moment that bright, brilliant football is not possible under the present system, one believes that generally there would be an increase in brilliance if the suggestion of Mr. Pearce w'ere carried out. Certainly it is difficult to see that it "would do the game harm in any conceivable way.

It was advocated in the Sydney Referee last year by V. C. Davis. The question came up as a result of the amount of destructive play that was being done by some breakaways, and the tendency for too much dull forward play to creep in and spoil the game as a spectacle, he writes. It is not right that so much potentially brilliant football should be nipped in the bud by the breakaways. News has come through from England that Mr. W. T. Pearce, former president of the English Rugby Union, has recommended that such a change be made; i.e., that seven forwards be employed in 2-3-2 formation, and that the backs be reduced to six, with a half, a five-eighth, one centre, two wing three-quarters, and a full-back, making the team 13 instead of 15 strong. The proposed amendment would make the game faster, writes V. C. Davis. Players would have to be more physically fit than they, as a whole, now are in order to stand the pace. As against that, the forwards would very likely have less scrummaging and rucking to do. The fast type' of forward produced by Australia would be well suited by the greater speed of play, when it came to matches against other countries. Obviously with four men less on the field there is more room for bright football. A class player given room to move in can turn on brilliant football, but if he has no room in which to move he tends to be brought almost to the level of his inferiors. The lessening of the number ol players would, on more numerous occasions under the present system, give players room in which to move. For that reason alone, the amendment would be worthwhile. But there is more to it than this. Half-backs’ lives would be worth living for as. change, for to pack properly in the 2—3—2 system it is not easy for the flank forwards to break away without upsetting the scrum. For they lock the three men in the second row. The Effect of 3—3—2 Scrum. The reduction to 13 a side would have a rich revolutionary touch. The