SCRUM FORMATION

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 16 April 1932, Page 11

SCRUM FORMATION

THREE IN FRONT ROW A 50-21 MAJORITY Discussion on tlio scrummage formation, a highly contentious subject, at the annual meeting of the council of the New Zealand Rugby Union, was completed. With a view to securing uniformity, the meeting approved of the Management Committee’s recommendation of the adoption of a three front row scrummage, and the abolition of the wingforward position, and decided to recommend acceptance to all affiliated unions. Continuing the discussion Mr E. McKenzie (Wairarapa) said that if it was intended to have one rule for internation--al games and another for club matches, then the word '“uniformity” should be struck out of the resolution. There could bo no half-measures. Personally, he thought they should adopt the principle of three men down in the front row for this season. In his own opinion •he did not think the scrummage rule would lust, it might be changed next year. He suggested that the rule as now written- should be given a trial this season. Mr W. Hornig (Wellington) favoured having three men in front of the scrum, and training the forwards so that they would become specialists in the same way as, the wing-forward had become a specialist. A PROVED FORMATION Mr N. McKenzie (Hawkes Bay) could see no reason why New Zealand’s formation, which had been proved over a period of about thirty years, should be changed. Several speakers suggested that the decision of the conference should be made binding on all unions. Mr Belcher (Auckland) moved as an amendment to the Management Committee’s recommendation: ‘‘That this meeting of delegates mutually agrees without exception that all unions adopt the tliree-in-the-front-row scrummage and abolish the wing-forward position.” Mr IL Manoy (Motucka) seconded the amendment. It was pointed out by Mr IT. Harris (Otago) that the N.Z.R.U. could not force the affiliated unions to play three men in the front row unless they wished. SCRUMMAGE DIFFICULTIES Mr R. Masters (Canterbury) suggested that Liu/main point was whether the N.Z.R.U. was going to bring in the three-men front row and have the same scrummage difficulties that exist in England and other Rugby-playing countries for the sake of eliminating the wingforward. Another point was that New Zealand had not received very much criticism of the wing-forward from. South Africa. He would like to know whether it was the wing-forward that the critics were up against or New Zealand’s winning ways. The amendment was lost. On being put to the meeting the motion was carried by a 50-21 majority.