SOUTH AFRICAN RUGBY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20302, 9 July 1929, Page 9

SOUTH AFRICAN RUGBY.

UNFAIRNESS' OF HOOKINGi.

INDICTMENT BY REFEREE.

HOW ALL BLACKS SUFFERED.

[FROM OUR SPBUAI. CORRESPONDENT.] JOHANNESBURG. May 27.

A bombshell has been dropped into the South African Rugby camp. It consists of an indictment by the union's leading and ablest referee, Mr. V. H. Neser, of the illegal hooking in South African Rugby, based, to some extent, on incidents noted by him during the tour of this country by the All Blacks. It explains the repetition of complaints by, the New Zealanders that they could not get the ball from the scrums. When the writer—who is a New Zealander—met Maurice Brownlie and other mcmhers of the All Blacks at Johannesburg, there was much concern among them at the illegal hooking by the South African teams. It was related by Brownlie that after the Western Province Towns match—the second of the tour —he jocularly remarked to one of the Capetown players at a social function in the evening that the illegal hooking tactics of the Western Province serummers were "over the odds." The reply he received was that it was "all right if it came off," or words to that effect.

Now Mr. laser's indictment has come not only as a reproof to the Rugby smugness of the South Africans, but has shown that impartial refereeing might have made a difference, if not to the tests, then certainly to some of the provincial matches. Disquieting Observations.

Mr. Neser, who refereed all five test matches between South Africa and New Zealand, has made a most important contribution to tho theory of Rugby football, in a small booklet just issued under the title of "Refereeing and Comments on the Laws of Rugby Football." Many of Mr. Neser's observations are of a most disquieting nature, as far as tho game in South Africa is concerned, lie unhesitatingly condemns the near foot hook as commonly practised in South African Rugby. In fact, if one is to carry his conclusion further, there can. be no question that a lot of the South African hooking against the New Zealanders last year was illegal. In the circumstances, the New Zealand reply, which consisted of bringing a man up from the second row into the front rank to gain the loose-head advantage, though it sometimes came very near to being an obstruction, must be regarded as having been somewhat excusable under the circumstances.

Mr. Neser points out that the rule which defines when the ball is fairly in the scrum lays down three requirements. First, the ball must be put in straight; secondly, it must touch the ground; and, thirdly, it must pass both feet of a player of each team. Use of Near Foot.

By means of a diagram he goes on to show that "it can be confidently stated that, the hooker whose pack has the loose head cannot use his near foot for the purpose of hooking without infringing the law, and he should only uso his far foot for hooking." He continues that many people are under the wrong impression that '.he outside forward is wholly debarred from taking any part in the struggle to secure possession of the ball in the scrum. "As securing possession of the ball in tho scrum makes all the difference between attack and defence, it would be a boon if some clear law were laid down which could bo easily applied, but it is doubtful whether such a law could be drafted." Concerning tho strategical move employed by tho All Blacks to gain the loose head advantage in the test matches, Mr. Neser states: "There is nothing in the laws of the game to prevent a forward adding himself to the front row of tho scrum after the scrum has been formed, unless by so adding himself he causes there to bo more than tlireo forwards in the front row. This was the plan adopted by the New Zealand team to counteract South Africa's superiority in tho scrum. Law Requires Amending.

"It would be an improvement if the law were amended to re'i.d: 'No player shall, after the scrum has been formed, wilfully add himself to the front low of tho scrum.' " Mr. Neser's views on speeding up the game by allowing the advantage rule to operate to its fullest extent in tho case of knocking-on by the players, may be quoted. Ho states: "Frequently a ciiticism is levelled at the referee that he is too fond of blowing the whistle, and that by so doing ho slows up the game arid spoils it. In some cases this criticism is justified, but only when a referee fails to app'y the 'advantage rule' reasonably. By intelligent application of the advantage rule a referee can allow a game to procoed with perfect fairness, whereas another referee may have stopped the game by blowing his whistle too quickly. "Apart from the .advantage rule a* rcfereo has no alternative and must stop the game if there has been any- infringement, however trivial or unimportant it may seem. Players Cause Stoppages. "The referee cannot be blamed if the game is full of infringements, for ho has simply to do his duty, and he would be failing badly if ho did not blow his whistle for overy infringement from which tho opposite side did not gain an advantage. The number of stoppages depends on the players and not on the referee." There is considerable speculation in Rugby circles in South Africa over tho recommendation of tho New Zealand Rugby Union urging on tho unions to revert to the International—or English—rules; and the later decision of the unions to adhere to tho New Zealand rules. In this connection it is interesting to note that the Transvaal Rugby Union has asked tho South African Board for a special dispensation enabling Transvaal to play the Now Zealand rule:?. It is recognised hero that the crowd wants a faster game, and this is perhaps reflected in tho lack of patronago at loral Rugby fixtures. Since tho All Blacks left this country public interest in tho game has languished considerably if the attendance at matches may be accepted as a criterion.