SIDELIGHTS ON RUGBY RULES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19800, 27 May 1926, Page 5

SIDELIGHTS ON RUGBY RULES.

By jChevaijee.

THE THREE-MINUTE RULE. It ia inevitable that in a game of Rugby more or less serious accidents are liable to happen at any time during the progress of a game. The rules provide that in case of accident no game shall be suspended for a longer period than three minutes. Also, if an accident happens, and the ball is in play, the game must not be stopped—unless in case ol danger—until the ball is dead. In the application of those instructions a certain amount of liberty must be given to the referee. In their way they are necessary rules, otherwise you would fand players imitating ''brer rabbit whenever the plav reached their danger zone. On the other hand, no game should be resumed at the end of three minutes if the accident is so,serious that playing is out of the question. We have seen a game suspended for 10 minutes, and rightly so, because a player's leg had been broken, end it was impossible to move him to the side line until first-aid had been given. In another case the player had been so badly injured that it was impossible for a lavman to say whether he was alive or dead. After the three minutes had elapsed the crowd, not realising the position, became impatient, and cried out tor the game to be resumed. The referee ignored the clamour, and refused to resume the game—although the man was off the field of play—until he knew that the player was alive. We agree with the decisions in both cases, although they were violations of the law. As we study the rules we see how much after all is really left to the discretion of the referee. It is advisable, however, not to exceed the three minutes if it can be avoided. There is a provision in the rules that is not generally known, and the Law Book draws referees' attention to it on page 5. It reads: "If a player is injured in taking a fair catch—that is, in making a mark—and is unable after the lapse of three minutes to take his kick, ia to be formed on the mark. We have no hesitation in saying that this is an unjust regulation, and can only be in existence because the authorities reverse the British custom of believing every man to be innocent until he is proved to be guiltv. Evidently it is imagined that if the kick could be transferred to another player, a good many markers would become mysteriously injured, and the goal kickers of the team would be endeavouring to increase the score. Perhaps, after all, it is the easiest way out of the difficulty, but in case it should be forgotten we remind you of the regulation. THINGS TO REMEMBER.

A ball before it is in the scrummage must be put past the first man. This is not always easy: neither is it always fair to give a free kick as a penalty. IN 6 nessed an exceedingly tight scrum fight on the line. The ball was very inadequately put in to the scrum, consequently the front row man played the ball. It shot out the side of the scrum. The wingforward passed it to the half, and he dadied over the line. This is an old dodge, but in the incident we are discussing it was the referee that failed to put the ball in the scrum properly, although ho did his best and he considered that he sufficiently penalised the attacking side by depriving them of their try and ordering another scrum. Wo must confess that we agree with him. In past years, when the ball has been deliberately thrown into touch or has been heeled back or passed back over the goal-line, the referee had to wait for an appeal from the opposing side. Tnat was done away with last year, and the application of the rule is in the referee s hand. , ~ , , >lTf On this point Rule 16 (a) says: If a player shall wilfully pass, knock, or throw the ball into touch, the opposite side may claim either a free kick or a scrummage. Such free kick or scrummage is to be taken at their option either: (al At any spot at right angles to the touch-line, ten yards from the place where the ball went into touch ; or (b) at the spot where such pass, knock, or throw occurred. If a free kick is taken the spot where the violation occurred is regarded as the mark. ’ Law 17 reads: “If any player shall willfully kick, pass, knock, or carry the ball back across the goal-line, and it there be made dead, the opposite side may claim that the ball shall be brought back and a scrummage formed at the spot whence it was kicked, passed, knocked, or carried back. Under any other circumstances a player may touch down the ball in his own rules have been quoted in full that both players and referee may be reminded that there is no need for the referee to wait for the claim. Indeed, he must act at once if he observes the breach We may say that Law 16 (a), as quoted seems to be honoured more in the breach than m the observance. Many a player has thrown the ball out of bounds in order to save his side, and both the players and the referee seem to be satisfied with a line-out. When action is taken by the referee under Law 16' (a), he must ask the captain of the nonoffending side whether he prefers a free kick or a scrum. When is a player out of bounds or, to use the technical phrase, in touch? There seems to b° a little doubt in some minds upon this point. It must have been the experience of most referees to have had to overrule some line umpires on this matter. A player can be out. of bounds and play the ball with either his hand or his foot, but the moment he lifts the ball of! the ground, being out of bounds himself, or even haying only one foot on the line, the bail is automatically taken out of bounds. It ought also to be remembered that when a nan crosses to the sideline in the air, even if the wind returns it into play, is out of bounds. It is possible that a dispute may arise with regard to a try end an indication may be given that it is intended to appeal to the Rugby Union. The referee must allow the kick at goal to be taken so that the scoring side may have a chance to. earn the major points in case the appeal is not UP Anoth?r rule, more honoured in the breach than the observance —which caused a great deal of confusion at its inauguration, because there was a division of opinion as to what it really meant is the one which stipulates that scrummages must be held 10 yards from the side lines. W e remember that some unions said that it was between the twenty-five yards mark and the goal line, and some that it was between the two twenty-five yards lines. We believe that an appeal was sent to Britain for an interpretation. Delay took place and to a great extent the law became a dead Wter No v there is no reason why this should be so The rule is in existence, and we have th c interpretation and the referee should see that teams play up to it. Taking thc centre of the field—that is, between the two twenty-five lines—as the area that is under discussion when dealing with rule 19. then all infringements "within 10 yards of the side hne and for which a scrummage is the penalty must have the ball scrummaged 1° yards from the line. To make a little clearer. Suppose there is a knock-on about three yards from the side line. The resulting scrum must take place 10 yards from the side line. If play is between the twentyfive line and the goal line and a knoctoon takes place three yards from the side line then the scrum must take place on the’spot on which the breach occurred. 'Where the referee, in some cases, has a fugitive idea that there is cuch a law, we have seen him once in a while suddenly remember it and then call a 10 yards scrum quite close to the goal line, and, of course, by that, decision has placed the defending side in a position of great attention should he drawn to a rule that we hope wi!l nevernecd to be applied in Dunedin. The rule we refer to came into operation last season, and we are sure many are unaware ox its existence. It is icund under I*' .» which deals with referees and touch judges. In section B of that law the referee is given certain instructions, ( and No. 3 of those instructions roads, persistent infringements of the rmes. Referees are asked to deal very firmly with all “pointers” and obstructionists. ine board is of the opinion that a practice has been growing up with certain players so that they take the risk of a penalty in order to gain or save a try by unfair play. The practice is so contrary to the spirit of the game that the board derided that it must be placed on the same footing as rough or foul play or misconduct The referee is now instructed to dr- I d-astlcafiv with such an offender. ORDERING OFF. This is a dudcult proposition for any referee and -we feel there are many occasions in which the player is given the benefit of the doubt. When a referee is vcun<* ha is '*~pted to be somewhat dictatorial When many years have passed away ha i- inclined to be too lenient. Something has happened in the middle distance that accounts for this change o, attitude. Drc of the chief reasons why 808 W •p*,%v6Ti W® not Bent off is that the

referee has to appear before the Rugby Union. That very often involves the referee in some self-denial in order to attend, and more than that, by the time the meeting takes place the player has expressed his regrets to the referee, and the referee when he appears before the union finds some excuse for the culprit, so that the penalty might be lessened. Many times he feels that there ought to be some regulations whereby the player can be sent off the field without reporting him to the union, or at any rate without compelling him and the referee to appear. To deprive a player of his game as well as the humiliation of sending him off is often sufficient penalty. At present that cannot be done. We remember taking the law into our own hands on one occasion. We ordered a Maori off, but did not report him to the union because it would have involved us in a 28mile journey in order to appear before the union. Before the end of the season we discovered our mistake, because that act of charity on our part was interpreted as an admission of weakness. Never again if a man goes off the report goes in, if it means a journey of 50 miles. In these enlightened days we do not get let down by the unions, although sometimes club interests must creep in in the discussions. We remember a match —a play-off—in which much bad feeling was revealed. We were unfortunate enough to hold thc whistle. Both sets of forwards were determined to kick each other off the field. It was generally admitted that the referee had made the best of a bad job unless he had been drastic enough to put both sets of forwards on the side line. One player was ordered off, and both teams were reported to the union. We happened to be a member of that union. To our astonishment the union divided into two camps in defence of the teams, and the referee was left high and dry. Club interests obscured their vision, and that referee determined that in the future he would consult his own interests unless he was assured that the union would back him up. These are the experiences that enlarge the tolerance of referees with players. At the same time one is glad to testify that in a properly-controlled game the incidents to which exception can he taken are very few indeed.