CANTERBURY PRESIDENT

NZ Truth, Issue 1272, 17 April 1930, Page 16

CANTERBURY PRESIDENT

Says Reversion To Old Rules Not Warranted AN ADMISSION OF WEAKNESS

(Prom "N.Z. Truth's" Special Christchurch Representative.) The delegates to the Canterbury Rugby 1 Football Union. have expressed themselves m no uncertain manner where they stand m regard to the kick-into-touch rule.

'"THE Union's representatives to the an--1 nual meeting of the New Zealand Union had the almost unanimous vote of over sixty delegates that they should vote m favor of the retention of the existing rule. ' ; When approached by "N.Z. Truth," Mr. A: E. McPhail, president of the Canterbury Union, expressed himself as being very strongly opposed to sacrificing anything that had taken many years of hard fighting to get. "The mandate which we -delegates to the annual meeting m Wellington held, was not from the Union's Management Committee, but from the delegates of all clubs under our jurisdiction," he said, "and this must be respected as the representative and authoritative opinion of the players. "At the annual meeting of. our union, Read Masters, the 1924 forward, w-hen asked for his opinion, stated that the New Zealand team which toured England found little difficulty m dropping back' to the oM rule and his statement so far as this goes, is supported by Sam Wilson, the New Zealand Union's delegate to the conference held m London. "You can rest assured that New Zealand will revert to International rules for this season at least, but I would be very sorry to see us go back permanently from a style of play which has made the game better to watch. "A master at Christ's College, when invited to express his opinion after haying witnessed many games played m England during the winter of 1929, told us that he was astounded at the sluggishness of the English 'game as compared with our standard. "I agree that a possible, contingency on the setting up of an international board including all the Rugby Union playing Dominions will be the playing of uniform rules, but to me it does seem a confession of weakness to revert back to the old rule after so many years of work convincing the English Rugby Union that this dispensation was necessary to suit local conditions m New Zealand. "It indicates a lack of versatility— that we are almost frightened to meet the Englishmen at their own game.

"But I watched very closely last season, and I am satisfied that it has developed m our players an inclination to kick the ball indiscriminately when out of their twenty-fives. This kicking, when executed by anyone except freak players like Cooke, invariably gives ,the other side possession, which will be fatal against the good line kicking of the Englishmen. "It has been said that the new rule has spoiled our forwards. I 1 don't agree. I think we have not got the best from our forwards through unsound selection. I consider it has spoiled the backs because of that inclination to kick anywhere regardless of cost." Beyond this Mr. Wilson was not inclined to advance any opinion. He merely explained that he was looking at the matter from the broad, national aspect.

m uancerDury we have about 2500 players, yet we will, he called on to alter their style of 'game for the sake of fifteen men who wili play two games against the Englishmen. To me it seems a very illogical method of control. "O v r principal overseas playing interests must be with Australia. There is no chance of them reverting and we will find; much discord with

our neighbors each year we play them. "I think it is better to remain firm for what we have worked hard for and which has unquestionably improved our style of game." "When "Truth" approached Sam Wilson he was loth to advance his own personal views when his union had instructed him to vote m favor of the retention of the rule. ■ BUt when reminded by "Truth" that his views would be valued m view of his long association with the" game and the part he played as New Zealand delegate to the London conference' m 1924, Sam stated that he did not mind speaking purely from a personal viewpoint, and m no way m opposition to the Canterbury Union's views. "Last year I was strongly m favor of retaining the new rule, but 1 must confess that since going deeply into the matter from the international point of view I have changed my views," he said. "If .we are to succeed In setting up an international board with England, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand having representation, uniformity of. rules is essential, and to achieve, this someone must 'make a •■■ sacrifice, . . . -. "When it comes' to the merit of the two rules I am hot going to say that the new rule is not the better from, the spectators'•point of view. •- ; ; jB- . ; . • •