Answers to Correspondents.

NZ Truth, Issue 252, 23 April 1910, Page 3

Answers to Correspondents.

"■.ft." (Tiinani).— The Union m question W wroag m its interpretation of the •pacified regulation, supposing, of Marat, , your statement fits m with the px«sW faces. On what ground the ufc&aa ttould come to such a decision, en the iacts related by you, is a Chinwe puzzle. •TUB" iChristchurch).— The player isontffe, aad if the referee rules the other Way ac is as ignorant of the Rugby im as Bill Massey is of navigating am Orient liner through Cook Strait. i^Xf.A.R." (Paeroa).— Being intimately ac(uaintedvwith the official referred to I !**• not the lease hesitation m characterises your assertions as utterly uneaVed for. Anyhow, no chance to gratify your wishes m these columns. *'A.T.K. !f (Wayerley).— The professional laws make no provision for such a contingency. All the' same the penalty lor such an offence would unqestibnably fee suspension for life. U R.L.*' l Wellington).— No such a case as quoted by you, no try. *E.L." (Greyniouth).— Bumby ; the other man mentioned was not a member of the English team. *"T.T." (Leeston).— Well, to be quite •andhl, Eric Harper has no claim whatever to be considered the best thrceqfcarter, ■■ centre or wing, tb.it the f-o---tnimian has produced, and I am quite s«x» that the Christch u.ch" nan n«ver hai tkat notion m his own brain-box. i^W/.i." (Blenheim).— lt would require a ( y«rjr clever rearguard; to execute a ftrategicii move of that kind with Complete success, if the opposing divisids has any brains to speak of. And What would the scrummagers be doing iW the meanwhile. fJ.&." (Kilbirnie).— There is no rule m thai R»gby code to prohibit a,- player fraan addicting the methods of the Sdathern frontrankers. The legitimacy of s»ch action is beyond all doubt. fPresumaaly, the side was penalised by the tehees for the ball being put unfairly ia *c scrum. The question of what ce»6ii*tes a fair "put in 1 ' produces a yrji'ic divergence of views among the wMs£Kng brigade. ' •