RUGBY RULES AND PROBLEMS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20162, 28 July 1927, Page 5

RUGBY RULES AND PROBLEMS.

By Chevalier. The great problem of the moment is'the unfortunate position created over the possession of the Kanfurly Shield, into interests of the game is it woith c any union making use of a player about whom there is likely to be a dispute. The determination of Hawke s Bay to hold the shield, even if it involves a case at law, is liable to create a very serious situation in Rugby circles, ior the good of. the game it would be better tor Hawke’s Bay to admit that an error of judgment had been made and allow Vv airarapa to retain the shield. Many of my readers will remember something ot the trouble created through the first match for the Payne Trophy, between the premier teams of Dunedin and Chratchmcl , a few years ago. In the play oft tor the City ot the Plains championship the Marists Club, which had held the championship for four years, managed to defeat Mcrivale by 6 points to 3. ihe next week Marists were called upon to meet University tbe Dunedin champion team. Untor innately, through a shortage of Payers, the Marists team endeavoured to make use of two men who were not fully qualified to represent the club. Persisting jn tbe wrong attitude that they decided to take up, the team was not allowed to meet University, which team had to be content with playing Menvale for trophe Many meetings were held, and some haicl words were spoKen, with the Jesuit that Mr Geo. Payne, the donor of the tr resigned the presidency of the -Marists Club, and the club itself turned ore. to Le is gU it' not possible for unions and clubs to learn lessons from -the mistakes, of the past? If the Hawkes Bay Union decides upon testing the matter in a ecmrt of law it may win upon a technicality, but will the action be of "ny rea beiiefit One thing is certain, and that .s that a very bad taste will be left m the mouths of all Rugby enthusiasts which it will take much labour to dispel. It will dso prove a very barren yictory for Hawke b Bav. In such a case the N.Z.R.h.u. snouia resume possession of the shield and not allow 'it to be Competed for until unions are agreed to contest it in a better spirit than has been developing during recent y6 ln S a recent First Grade game it was noticed that an argument took between the referee and the wing of the defending side. Suddenly the referee threw the ball to the half-back of the attacking side and awarded a free kick. This gave rise to some speculation amongst the experts as to the reason of ''the referee’s action. The referee explained the situation after the garne lt appears that the wing forward was standing offside, and the referee was intending to’put the ball in the scrum himself,-He ordered the wing forward back, and, when no notice was taken of Ins instructions, he awarded a free kick to the other, side. In this case the referee made a mistake on two grounds. First of all, the local association had decided that the referee should not put the ball in the scrum on any occasion. In the second place, it is not the referee’s duty to instruct the players as to their places in the field. If the referee was determined to put the ball in the scrum himself he should have done so, and them, penalised the player concerped for being offside. -Get me give an illustration of what I mean. A team is kicking off, and one of the players is standing in front of the ball. The referee does not instruct him to get behind the ball. The player ought to know that, and no one complains when the referee blows his whistle and orders a scrum. , , , I have been handed a card compiled by a spectator during two games played recently on Carisbrook. It >is a most interesting card, and in some ways a revelation, but I am afraid the compiler could not have enjoyed the games on that Saturday, because checking and compijing statistics during an enthusiastic game, and in the midst of a “ barracking ” crowd, is a trying and somewhat disconcerting operation. The point to which I want to draw attention in this compilation is the amount of time lost in a game when The ball goes out of bounds. In the first game no less than 19i minutes were lost in recovering the ball and getting back into play. There were no fewer than 101 line-outs, and the time occupied in the recovery of the ball varied from four to 38 seconds. Only on 33 occasions was the ball in play again iu less than 10 seconds. In the main match 18 minutes 51 seconds were lost in this way, and there were no fewer than 105 line-outs — 51 in the first spell and 54 in the second spell. In this game the time spent in the return of the ball varied from four seconds to 25 seconds. Thirty-four of the returns were made under 10 seconds. It seems to me that the game would be greatly improved if an endeavour were made to keep the ball iu play instead of kicking for the line on every possible occasion. Through bad kicking or bad judgment the kick-into-touch rule is becoming a nuisance instead of an assistance to the game. A great deal of time is lost in bringing back the ball for a line-out parallel to the spot from which the kick was taken. Last Saturday I noticed on one occasion that the player throwing the ball in had all his men in position, but waited until his opponents were ready. There is no need for this at all. He had every right to get the ball in as quickly as possible. A correspondent has asked why the three balls had been banished from Carisbrook. The reason is that it would bo unfair to throw in a second ball immediately, and there is no provision in the rules for two or more balls to be used. The referees were therefore instructed to consent to one ball only being used. With one ball only, tbe man who throws in the ball may do so as soon, as his men are ready to receive it. Another correspondent has asked a series of questions that are really a reflection on the referee. He inferred that because the linesmen belonged to one club there must be something at the back of such an arrangement. I happened to be sitting in the grand stand with Mr I. Grant and his lady friends watching the first match. Mr Grant had no idea that he would be linesman for tbe second game. In accordance with a resolution of the Referees’ Association, Mr C. Jenkins, the president, came to Mr Grant and said: “We want you as a line umpire in the second game.” Having.been called upon, Mr Grant had to leave his friends and take charge of the flag. Club interests did not come into the reckoning. I feel this ought to be stated in justice to Mr Grant. The other points mentioned in “Equity’s” letter arc just as easily answered, but no good jiurpose will be served in dealing with the matter here. The regulations dealing with the scrummage contain the statement: ”Tho referee may order the ball to be put. into the scrummage on either side he may choose.” A referee the other day argued that he could make the wing forwards come round to his side of the scrum. He can do so only with the man who is putting the ball in. In a game last Saturday a wing forward was placed on each side of tile scrum. If the teams are satisfied with that, why should the referee increase his difficulties by getting the two men on the same side of the scrummage? Referees seem very neglectful about holding scrums 10 yards from the side line in between the 25 yards lines. Attention was drawn to this at a recent meeting of the association, because, in the two big games on Carisbrook, both referees seemed to neglect the rule. One referee defended his action by stating that when “sacks on the mill” took place lie allowed the scrum on the spot because no i.-.fringe-ment had taken place. He was soon disillusioned by the meeting agreeing that "sacks on the mill” constituted an infringement, and that therefore the scrums must be held 10 yards from the touch line.