RUGBY REFEREES

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11224, 1 June 1922, Page 7

RUGBY REFEREES

RULES BF THE SAKE ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF MEMBERS OF ASSOCIATIONS. VITAL POINTS DISCUSSED. A conference of delegates from the affiliated branches of the New Zealand Rugby Referees’ Association was held at the Town Hall yesterday. The president, Mr D. McKenzie (Welling, ton), occupied the chair. The representation was as follows:—Auckland, A. Wethorilt; Taranaki, P. Skogland; Wellington, 0. Moffitt; Wairarapa, N. J. McKenzie; Hawke’s Bay E. D. Berry; Hastings, G. A. Madd'ison; Poverty Bay, S. S. Deane; Horowhenua, V. Higgins; Nelson, B. Edwards; Marlborough, C. N. Fisk; Canterbury, the Rev. W. B. Scott; Manawatu, D. D. Williams; Waipa, W, Cavanagh; Taihape, W. Bennett; West Coast T. A. Fletcher; Southland, W. F. Sutton; secretary, Mr L. Sievers. CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS. In declaring the proceedings open, Mr McKenzie said that the assooiatiou bad originally been formed with .the object of effecting uniformity in ruling light throughout the Dominion. The conferences were not held regularly, but as deemed necessary, and the decisions in regard to interpretation oi rules were recommended for adoption by all associations. At a later stage ‘of the meeting, the president stated, a suggestion would he made that the conference should meet in a different district on each occasion. This would enable the delegates to get into better touch with local conditions in the different centres. The conference, he said, had always been productive of good, and he hoped the present sitting would result in something to the benefit of the best game of all—Rugby football. DISCUSSIONS ON REMITS. Conference thereupon proceeded to consider the remits on the order paper:—• On behalf of the Hastings Association, Mr Maddison moved that it he a recommendation to all associations that referees should signal when the ball was on the ground when a kick was being taken after a try has been scored ; and, further, when a plaoe kick is taken after a mark has been awarded. After some discussion, the remit was lost. Hastings also asked for a definition of the rule regarding picking out of the scrum. The president said that it was quite legitimate for a half-back to help the passage of the hall by putting his foot into the scrum. The word “picking” necessarily implied handling -with the hands, which was a distinct breach. THE “KNOCK-ON” RUDE. Wellington forwarded a remit regarding the deletion from the rule book last year of a point concerning the “knock on.” Mr Moffitt moved : “That if a player knocks on the hall but recovers it before it reaches the ground, the game be allowed to proceed.” In support of the remit, the mover declared that the present rule was one of the worst features of the game. (Hear, hear.) It resulted, in. continual holding up of the play for petty knocks on: and so hindered the speeding-up of the game which was now being developed. If a player knocked the ball on and recovered it before it touched the ground, he considered it a clever piece of play. The president explained that the interpretation had been deleted last year in deference to the wishes of the Springbok team. The motion, was oarried. In accordance with a decision: of the Wellington Rugby Refereee’ Association last Monday evening, the interpretation will be applied in next Saturday’s matches. WAS IT A GOAL? .Wellington recommended that after an unconverted try the ball should be drop-kicked from half-way, instead of being place-kicked. The mover, Mr Moffitt, pointed out that there was often a good deal of confusion amongst spectators and the Press representatives as to whether a try had' been converted. The present awaal would l do away with that tSfty. Other delegates suggested that the conversion should he more oleaTly indicated by the referee, either by a long blast on the whistle or by a 'decisive arm signal. It wds decided that the referee should signal by holding up hi* right hand. THE WING-FORWARD. % , Southland (Mr W. F. Sutton) recommended that, jn the interests of football generally, the wing-forward he abolished. j Mr McKenzie (Wairarapa) maintained that any team, might play a wingforward if it chose. Until a rule was made declaring that a player oould not advance beyond l an imaginery line through the scrum his' influenoe would continue. The chairman suggested l that the referee should be empowered to deal very strictly with the wing-forward, and render him as little a nuisance as possible. The remit was withdrawn in favour of an amendment, that referees be instructed to impose the full penalty against wing-forwards. This was carried. THE APPEAL RULE. A motion by Mr H. J. MoKeDzie (Wairarapa) affecting the appeal rule was carried, in the following amended’ form:—That the appeal rule be altered to provide that in all cases of the ball being wilfully passed, heeled, or wilfully kicked back over a team’s own goal line, the referee shall blow his whistle at once, without waiting for an appeal from the non-offending side. The amendment is to be forwarded as a recommendation to the English Rugby Union. THE 1921 CONFERENCE. Consicteration was next given to decisions of the executive in regard to rulings of tho 1921 conference. In regard to the question whether a player was in-goal if lie had one foot <n the field of play and the other in-goal, the executive held that the player should bo considered as not having carried the ball back over tbe goal line if ho placed it on the ground in-goal The executive’s ruling was endorsed. Conference decided to soek an into rpa-ettafoion from the IMtomiational Board of Control of tho rulo regarding scrummage bronchos within ton yards of tho touchline. Tho decision of tho Now Zealand Committee as to the ten yards scram rale as applying to the touchliue between the twontyfivo lines was confirmer].

THE NEW RULE.

Tho executive gave several rulings concerning tho amended kicking into touch rule. Anprova.l wm . fo

the ruling that in the event of a player seeking a mark three yards outside his own twenty-five yard line, retiring back in his own twenty-live _ to take the kick, and the ball dropping out on the full, a line out should be ordered opposite where J the mark was taken. The decision that in the event of a player receiving the ball outside his twenty-five, deliberately running back behind it and kicking from there direct into touch, the line-out should, be where the player received the ball, was not confirmed. Conference confirmed the executive rulings in the following cases: (al That if ai player in midfield made a kick and the ball pitched into touch in his own twenty-nvd, the advantage rule should apply, and a line-out should •he ordered where the ball went into touch; (b) that the _ new rule should not apply to a kick-off: (c) that if a player kicked the hall direct into touch and the ball in its flight touched an opponent, a line-out should be oalled where the hall went into touch; (d) that in the interpretation of the new rule the touch judge only should inchoate where the hall went into touch, the referee to decide whether the hall landed infield or in touch: if in doubt the referee to consult Hie touch judge. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF REFEREES. The question was raised as to whether referees should be subjected to cross-examination in cases where they (have reported players to the management committee, or whether the players’ evidence should be taken. Mr Wetherilt (Auckland) remarked that as a rule management committees did not know much about the game. They knew the difference between a Rugby and a “Soccer” ball, but net much more. (Laughter.) Conference / reached no decision m the matter.