AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALLERS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20288, 22 December 1927, Page 9

AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALLERS.

VISITORS CHARGED WITH ROUGHNESS. NOT THE SLIGHTEST FOUNDATION. (From Our Own LONDON, November 5. Some writers in this country, sooner or later, was bound to seek publicity for himself by making.an attack on the play ot the Australian Rugby team. This has happened. He speaks of ‘ not placing the game ” and of “ obstruction.” Other writers, however, have been quick to challenge the attack. G. W. Pockford, of Sporting Life, for instance, thus clctcnds the visitors: — "It was very distressing to those ol us who have seen the IV aratahs in action on many occasions, to read, within the last few days, an attack on them for what baldly is an indictment for 1 not playing the game.’ “ There is not the slightest foundation for such an attack. We read of ‘ obstruction ’ methods in the line-out which could not, and would not, be tolerated for a moment in this country, and of an inclination on thoir part to bo ultra-vigorous in the loose. It is altogether wrong, as the thousands who have already seen thorn play will at once admit. "At the commencement of the tour there wen; occasions when some of the players, as we interpret tiie laws of the game, were penalised for wiltul obstruction. lint their methods were not unfair, or adopted to gain an unsportsmanlike advantage, but simply those which arc openlv in operation in New South Wales.

‘ “ Directly their attention was called to tho fact the tactics —perfectly fair ones in their opinion—ceased, and since then Gordon Ross, their manager, has stated publicly that they were in. agreement with the laws of the Rugby Union on this quo matter alone, and would endeavour on their return to sec they wore adopted in their country. “To suggest that the Waratah forwards are ultra-vigorous in several phases of the game would be amusing, if it were not part of the general condemnation. It would be interesting to know the definition of the word vigorous by the individual responsible for the attack. One wonders whether ho wan present at Twickenham when the Waratahs met London ? SCRUPULOUSLY FAIR. “If so, how would ho describe thoso glorious attacks in tho open by such forwards as Wakefield, Mnc.Uyn, M'Vicker, Stark, ‘ Horsey ’ Browne, and TurquandYoung? They wore vigorous enough in every sense of the word, gloriously vigorous, and tho clashing of those 16 forwards on that day was tho real feature of a memorable battle. “ But it was all so scrupulously fair. Mon went down, and went down hard; men were ‘booted,’ and rightly so if they did not play the ball, but there was not a single occasion when the ‘ victim did not rise from the ground with what we may describe os a ‘ Jammy ’ Clinch grin. “ Rugby football is not a drawing room game. It is u game for men in the prime of youthful manhood, who give hard knocks and take them as part of the price they willingly pay for tho privilege of participating in it. “There is no room in tho game for men who do not recognise this fact, but I have never known a Rugby man who, if tho opportunity was provided, would not turn out on every conceivable occasion. “1 hope that ‘John’ Wallace and his colleagues will not be hurt by such refer oncos, I can assure them they are extremely popular wherever they have been, that they have made many friends, and will make many more for the hard, Uean, and attractive game they play on every occasion, apart altogether from their own personalities. “Fancy Wallace and Lawton representing a combination that did not play (he game 1”

THE “NELSON EYE." “Critics of Rugby football aro, in the main, kind-hearted people,’’ writes “ St. Elmo,” of the Daily Express. “Speaking as one of them, their most amiable weakness is an inclination towards too much use of the 'Nelson eye.’ But that applies chiefly to the outlook on homo auairs. When watching some of our own jlayers wo are liable to bo to their faults a little blind. We view the manoeuvres of touring teams from the dominions through much more powerful glasses. “ It was pointed out to the Waratahs at the start of the tour that their back row—or ‘ breakaway ’ —forwards were employing methods which, in this country, were regarded as obstruction. Such methods, it was stated in reply, were legitimate in New South Wales, but the visitors agreed at once to conform to British rules and usages. HUMBUGS AND HYPOCRITES. “ Suggestions have been made, however that one or two of the forwards afo still disposed to obstruct their opponents and to use unnecessary vigour. There may be some foundation for (his, but my point is that, whether the criticism has justification or not. it is unfair and ungracious to proclaim the alleged discovery in the tourist s’ ranks of irregularities which aro seen and often passed without comment in home football.

Rugby is a clean game—-remarkably so when we think of its resemblance to primitive warfare. But we should ho humbugs and hypocrites if wc pretended that not a single British chib team had earned a name for ‘naughtiness’ and that, ohd ruction and exce-s of vigour were unknown among our own players. “The Waratahs collectively have gained a, well-deserved reputation for good -port?, man-hip, and have made hosts of friends If there is a ‘storm centre’ in the team, llial matter can he safely left to those admirable ambassadors, the captain and the manager.”