RUGBY CONTROVERSY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 20116, 29 November 1928, Page 13

RUGBY CONTROVERSY.

METHOD OF PACKING SCRUM. SOUTH AFRICAN AGREEMENT. CRITICISM OF PROCEDURE. [by telegraph.—press association.] WELLINGTON, Wednesday. The agreement regarding the packing of the scrum, drawn up between the New Zealand and the South African Rugby Union, was the subject of considerable discussion at tho meeting of the management committee of tho New Zealand Rugby Union this evening, when tho report of tho manager of tho team, Mr. W. Hornig, was considered.

Mr. J. G. Roache said he considered clause 4 of the agreement concerning the packing of tho scrum was contrary to the laws of the game.

Mr. Hornig said the South African referees allowed only ono method of packing tho scrum. They would not allow two heads to go down together.

Mr. H. S. Leith: It was a case of when in Rome you must do as the Romans do. Mr. Roache: It was contrary to tho laws of the game.

Mr. Leith: It was ridiculous. Mr. Hornig: I do not think it was contrary to tho laws of the game. Mr. Roacho: You show mo where the rules state that the scrum must be packed according to the method insisted upon by the South African referees. Mr. Hornig: You show, me where it is Jaid down that the scrum must not be formed that way.

" Would Sign Agreement Again." Mr. E. Wylie: Personally, I would not have signed any agreement. Mr. Dean: If you were going upon another tour would you sign another agreement?

Mr. Hornig: Certainly I would. It would not have made the slightest difference.

Mr. Wylie: What about the clause stipulating that the man who put the ball in the scrum should be regarded as a halfback?

Mr. Hornig: In agreeing to that we considered we were safeguarding our wing forward. Mr. Leith: You were not. I do not consider tho South African referees had any right to contract us out of the laws of tho game. Mr. Hornig said scrum formation in South Africa was shocking. Often the ball would be put in eight times before tho referee was satisfied that it had been fairly put in. Mr. Dean said he did not consider that it was a riuhfc thing to sign such an agreement. Still Messrs, Hornig, M. Brownlie and M. Nicholls were there and considered it was the proper thing to do.

No Power to Alter Laws. Mr. Hornig; We signed the agreement in the interests of the harmonious working on the tour. Mr. Fletcher asked if the South African referees allowed the ball to go on to the centre of the scrum before it was hooked.

Mr. Hornig: Yes. They often insisted upon the ball being put in as many as eight times until it did go into the centre of the scrum.

Mr. Leith said that in nearly every country they had different interpretations of the rules.

After the report had been received, Mr. Roaehe moved that the South African Rugby Board be informed that clause 4 of tho agreement entered into between tha South African Board and the New Zealand team in 1928 was contrary to tho laws of the game. Mr. Wylie said that no body of men had any power to alter the laws of the game. They should bo careful not to let this 1928 agreement be used as a precedent. Mr. Wylie contended that the South African Board should be informed that the agreement had no effect as it contravened law 10.

On his suggestion Mr. Roache agreed to include this in his motion, and in this form tho resolution was carried.