AMENDED RUGBY RULES

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 5 April 1933, Page 6

AMENDED RUGBY RULES

NOT ENTERTAINED BY ENGLISH UNION WHAT OF REPLACEMENTS? Confirmation of a report t|iat Australia’s application to play the “amended kick-into-touch rule’’ had been turned down by the Puigby Football Union (England) was given in the tabling of an official communication from the English Union’s secretary at last week's meeting of the Management Committee of the New South Wales Rugby Union. The amended rule required by Australian Unions was that which was introduced into New Zealand and Australian Rugby football some years ago, but which was subsequently banned by order of the Home authorities. The letter from the secretary of the English Union stated Your appeal was most carefully considered, and Dr. G. L. Brown, your representative, urged that the dispensation be given. My committee, however, regretted the appeal could not be favourably received, and, although they realise the great difficulties you have to overcome, they sincerely hope that the conditions prevailing with the Australian unions will improve, and that the game as played by the four Home unions and the Dominions will continue to be played in Australia.” Discussion on the letter, concerning which the Management Committee made a. recommendation, was taken in committee, and no announcement was made in open meeting. It appeared, however, that the rule was regarded as being of vital importance to the future of the code, and that some line of action in meeting the position was contemplat-

ed. If the reported intention of the Queensland Rugby Union is correct complications are likely to arise. It is stated that the ruling of the English body against the playing of rules other than those in vogue in Great Britain is not to be , recognised in Queensland. The Rugby officials there, it is reported, intended to open the season in Brisbane last Saturday by reverting to the rules under which kicking into touch on the full is restricted to a player in his own twenty-five, these rules to apply in club and inter-city matches. Wnether they would be adopted in the inter-State games was entirely a matter for the other States. The reply to Australia’s request settles the second of three important matters recently placed before the English Rugby Union by affiliated unions overseas. As previously reported, South Africa’s application for players to be permitted to leave the field at half-tim?, without the restriction imposed by the rules, was not successful, and now it is disclosed officially that Australia’s request, for the amended rule has been refused. These decisions are of particular interest to New Zealand, but what is more important is the result of New Zealand’s application for fl»:rmission to replace injured players. On this matter no official announcement has been made by the New Zealand Rugby Union, although a report from another source stated that the application had received the approval of the English Union. Directly after that report, however, there was a denial from the secretary of the English Rugby Union. There can be little doubt that New Zealand’s case for replacements was considered at the same meeting at which the English Union dealt with the requests from South Africa and Australia, and it is surprising that, with the start of a new season almost at hand, no official announcement as to the result has been forthcoming. It is probable, of course, that the matter is still receiving consideration, and maybe it is a case of no news being good news.