RUGBY RULES AND PROBLEMS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20174, 11 August 1927, Page 5

RUGBY RULES AND PROBLEMS.

By Chevalieb.

The curtain-raiser played at Carisbrook last Saturday gave a great deal of enjoyment to the assembled spectators, ihe favcrsham schoolboys comprise a team that would do credit to any primary school, but the superior skill of the boys from the Macaudrew Road School made I them. look quite ordinary. This is no discredit to Caversham all the same. 1 i understand that the Macandrew Road i boys have not had .their line crossed this year. That is a record that any team may be proud of. It was my privilege to control the first game between these two juvenile teams a few weeks ago, when Caversham were defeated by 12 points to nil. On that occasion I admired the machine-like precision of the South Dunedin boys and the fine manner in which they worked the reverse pass. All of the lads are workers from whistle to whistle. In the Caversham team there are more individualists, and consequently less concerted work. Mr A. W. Alloo, the coach of the champion team, is an enthusiast of the first order. He has won the confidence of the boys, and they are ready to do anything and everything for him. If it is true that Mr Alloo has never played Rugby, then it lends a good deal of colour to the statement that referees and coaches are born, and not made. It seems to be a great pity that the lure of golf lias lost to Rugby a gentleman that would evidently have made as good a referee as he is a coach and cricketer. Congratulations to the Macandrew Road boys and their coach on their splendid achievement. What a pity it is that it is not possible to keep such boys together | after they leave school, in an old boys’ team to carry on the traditions of a school that has for some years made a name for itself in the Rugby world. When it was known that Mr Epkhold was to control last Saturday’s game against Southland a number of questions was asked, and it was suggested that the manager of the Southland team had refused the names nominated by the Appointment Board, and had requested that Mr Eckhold be appointed to control the • game. Others said that both teams had asked for Mr Eckhold. On inquiry, it was discovered that the Appointment Board had sent forward a long list of 1 names, and out of this list Mr Eckhold’s j name had been chosen. The action of the Appointment Board in departing from its previous decision leaves it open to j criticism. It is this backing and filling s policy throughout the Dominion that gives > rise to heartburnings and consequent trouble. My own opinion is that Mr ' Eckhold’s name should have been mi eluded originally, but, having helped to i elect the Appointment Board, I, for one, was quite willing to trust their judgment. [ I am sure that most of the referees are ‘ of this mind, but when the board departs ‘ from its considered policy it is apt to ’ destroy confidence. This is mentioned 1 not for the purpose of criticism, but to , indicate that such actions arc likely to j give rise to misunderstanding and bad . feeling. On the whole, the Appointment J Board has done self-denying and splendid J work throughout the season, but I must . confess that this last move shows signs of weakness, i Then, again, the spectator seems to be 1 infected with the bug of criticism, and' even Mr Eckhold—the undoubted people’s 1 favourite—came in for severe criticism. 1 The usual analysis, as to scrums, line- ! outs, and the blowing of the whistle, was • forthcoming. lam not going to give them i lest a misinterpretation may be placed ; upon my notes. Suffice it to say that he i did no better in all respects than some i other referees who have been on Caris- , brook. Because Otago has been defeated 1 why should the referee—who acted, with • his usual ability—be keelhauled? Isn’t it about time that the weakness should ■ bo looked for in some other direction, t The Otago team looked like a rabble in 5 the second spell, and at no stage of the r game did they look like winning. You • cannot blame the referee for that, yet 5 people, who ought to know better, are trying to place the blame on the wrong 1 shoulders. Our team on Saturday did not play a good club game let alone a ’ representative one, and I can imagine that before the team goes on tour there . will be several alterations. In last week’s ’ Ereo Lance, a paragraph headed “Rugby Not a Summer Pastime,” says: “Time is ' an essential factor with the Wellington Rugby Union, and even one Saturday , afternoon’s play cannot be spared if the full season’s programme is to be got through. _ Therefore, it was not surpris- . ing, despite the weather that prevailed last Saturday, that the decision was come to to play all senior A games. There is not the real necessity to play the other fixtures, and the determination to declare them off was appreciated by the younger players.” There has been some complaint in certain quarters at the senior contest not being played to a finish. Everyone would have been happier if this could have been avoided. In any case, the time i ar distant when other engagements will not be allowed to interfere with club fixtures. A feeling is growing up. and will soon make itself clearly manifest, that "I 0 £ alne mu st be played in the interests of the great mass of the players and not in the interests of the great mass of the Incidentally the contest in Vy eilington is also a very close one. Prcv.lo,u,s t. 0 !nst Saturday the positions were: Athletic 20 points. Old Boys 19 points, University 19 points, and Petone 18 points. On a percentage basis the Old Boys have a better record than the others*’as they have played one match less. Last Saturday® matches gave victory to Petone, Athletic, and Old Boys. The University Club was defeated by Petone. A little reckoning will show that the position is even more interesting in Wellington than it was in Dunedin. May I quote another paragraph from the same source? “When a match is decided right on the call of time there are always complaints about the scheduled time being exceeded. Such happened on Saturday in the Athlctic--1 etone match, one Athletic supporter being anything but complimentary in his remarks to the timekeeper. Our mornimr contemporary helps the trouble along Jhe statement that ‘it was after time when Petone scored their equalising try. . Hero arc figures + L o t.i le timekeeper. The match started at 2.5 b, Hiero were four stoppages o U 4 -. lc i,t irst tmlf, and the spell finished at d. 40, the second spell commenced at 3.554 there were two stoppages, and the full flw V V f aS If; was cxact ‘y 4.40 when the Petone try was scored, the actual time hV.n? t lG i kail was still in play. K cn Place kick at goal was t?kf n h 1(5 tlm . a 'y a ®.4.41." I have quoted tins because it indicates a problem that all xefereoa are faced with, especially in keeping their own time. A recent sug-fnK-i tbat m dr °PP e(l across seems to ' fhk,fi I th ® prob i em - If is that the referee should carry two watches, one of them adui » On this watch the hands a l e dxed at the time the spell must stop. snr.li fj re u are , any s f°PPages during the spell the hands are moved for the period b f nn,t a ’f *l n the ,P la - v - Then, when the hands of the working watch coincide with the hands on the dummy watch, the bnw*! 0 lrm ; i . cdlatel .V knows to the minute how long the game has been going. I know of one referee who became involved in bis estimates, cut the final spell short by nine minutes, and consequently left a large crowd waiting for trams that were not in evidence because the tramways official, having made a correct estimate of the period of play, had not expected any patrons for at least another 10 minutes. Au incident in last Saturday's match cave rise to a discussion, after ‘the game between two experts of the Referees’Assonation. It wifi b 0 remembered that at one stage of the game there was a long pass, winch was intercepted, and instead ot tile game being allowed to proceed (he p aver who intercepted was penalised. One ol tlie parties to the discussion had i e.erced a schoolboys’ match in the mornana had had a similar experience, and j fiisp had penalised tho plavcr because T ’; au tjfl 0n sliding within tho 10 vards’ u-.nt llio other expert contended that both referees were wrong on the ground tnat it did not matter where an “offside” plajor stood when the interception took plactx Both were agreed that the decision on Lanshrook was wrong, because the player who intercepted was good 10 yards away. On the point as to whether a player can. intercept when within the If rards _ limit from an oflsidc position the morning referee was correct, and the other expert wrong in his contention. On page 40 of tho handbook, -paragraph 4, we read: “A player offside may intercept a pass Irom an opposing player. This is not contrary to the law. Tlie act of the player making the pass puts the 'offside’ player 'on side.’ But when tlie player witli tiio hall received it (In; ‘offside' player must have been outside the 10 j yards’ limit.”