SIDELIGHTS ON RUGBY RULES.

Otago Witness, Issue 3774, 13 July 1926, Page 32

SIDELIGHTS ON RUGBY RULES.

By

Chevalier.

& QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION. With regard to the official ruling about remaining passive on the mark, in case of a penalty kick, we wrote in a recent article, “We can see possibilities in this ruling that may work out unexpectedly, but there it is and we must act upon it.” In view of two letters that we have received, may we give the official interpretation of the rule again? “In the case a free kick the players on or about the mark must remain passive. The real meaning of this is that the ball must be allowed to go over the mark without being interfered with. A player cannot stand syds behind the mark and charge up to spoil the kick—if he does do so, another kick is to be awarded. When the ball has crossed the mark, any player can catch the ball if it comes within his reach. By that time the kicker has had his free kick without being obstructed. The rule does not mean that those not on the line of mark—halves, three-quarters, and so on—should be out of the game until the kick has expended itself.” The Dunedin Referees* Association, after some discussion, accepted this as the official ruling for this season The two letters mentioned deal with the same match, and the ruling given above. The referee’s decision had a most important bearing rn the result of the contest in the district We give extracts from the letters, without mentioning names or places. We regret that the letters did not reach “Chevalier” in time for a reply in last week’s article. The referee who controlled the match writes: “I had occasion to award a free kick. Two players on the opposite side stood on the mark other players standing directly behind them. One of the latter players jumped and touched the ball with his hand in its flight towards the goal. The ball went over the bar and I awarded a goal, under the ruling contained on page 121 in this year’s Annual, which reads 'When a penalty kick is awarded the opposite sido may not charge. They must remain passive on or behind a line drawn through the mark where the penalty kick is awarded and parallel to the goal line.’ My interpretation of the rule is that as long as the ball, in ita flight, clears the defending players’ heads it must not be interfered wiui. The rule says the defending side must remain passive, and I maintain that they have no right to put their hands above their heads. Am I right or wrong?” THE OTHER POINT OF VIEW. 1. “(a) What is your interpretation of 'on •r about the mark?' That statement appeared in your last notes, and it affects ftur team very much. How far do you call 'about?' ”

“(b) Our team was defeated by 9 points I to 6. When our opponents were awarded I their penalty one of our men stood on the mark. The others scattered around the field, and one of our men took up a position about 4yds directly behind the mark. When the kicker kicked the ball the man on the mark remained perfectly passive, but the man 4yds behind jumped and touched the ball, which went over the bar, and the referee awarded a goal. Was the referee justified in his action? In my opinion ne was not, because it a player behind the mark touches the ball in its flight and the ball goes over the b'aT it is not a goal, and I would like to know if I am right or wrong. We are appealing because, by the opponents winning that match, the Challenge Cup was taken away from us. If we could make a draw of it we would get the cup back.” Reading between the lines we can Imagine what a "daddy” of an argument took place after the match was over. It bears out Another statement of ours that, if a referee gives a decision about which there is any doubt, It is very often a deciding factor in the game. One cannot help feeling sorry for both the referee and the losing team in this case. We have some very definite opinions upon the question of rules and rulings. It seems to us an unfair proceeding for headquarters to precipitate new interpretations of rules upon associations and districts in the middle of a season. If It is impossible to incorporate new interpretations in the Annuals and Handbooks before the season commences, then they should not come into until the following season. Already this season even referees of experience are becoming confused in the interpretation of certain rules. In looking through this year's Otago Annual we notice that in more than one place the interpretations have not been brought up to date. The referee’s decision is correct ns far as the Annual is concerned, but wrong when the official interpretation at the head of the article is considered. These articles are written to give the latest interpretations, and this very point was enlarged upon by us quite recently. As both our correspondents refer to the benefit the articles have been to country players, ft is rather strange that our explanation of this new interpretation was overlooked bj the referee. We had the point, however, discussed again at last Saturday’s meeting of the association. The meeting was of the opinion that the referee was wrong, but a leading member of the Rugby Union, who was present, declared that the association was wrong, and that a free kick should be a free kick. In every sense of the word. That Is our own opinion as to what ought to be the position of things, but if the official ruling, as given at the beginning of this article, la In force, then we must abide by it. It all goes to show the need of an expert committee to simplify the rulings and to give at lefcst a season’s notice of any drastic alteration. The difficulty is con-

nection with this is that we are subject to the Old Country, and the seasons do not coincide. What a wealth of difficulty would be removed if a free kick became a free kick in every sense of the word! Our advice to the parties concerned in the discussion under notice is to carry their appeal to headquarters and make of it a test case for the guidance of referees all over the country. Since writing the above we have come across an explanation of the “ standing passive ” rule when a penalty kick is taken. It is the explanation given by the New Zealand Rugby Referees’ Association to the amendment of the British rules. The explanation which defines standing on or about the mark reads: “Players standing on the line of mark, or WITHIN A YARD OR TWO THEREOF, must remain quite passive until the ball has crossed the line.” This throws additional light on the questions asked by our country correspondents and narrows the decision down to the distance the player, who touched the ball in its flight, was behind the man standing on the mark. If the man were fairly close to the mark the referee was right. If the man were four yards away the referee was wrong. We still think that the problem is worth an appeal to headquarters. We all want to be sure on the* point. A CORRECTION. | In a recent article dealing with “In Goal ” we made a statement in which we said: “The rebound through the ball striking the goal post as the player kicks out from his own ‘ in-goal ’ is always liable to happen, and it often flusters the referee. If he makes a mental note that it involves a re-kick, some of his troubles will be smoothed out.” On page 47 of the Handbook we have a summary of what can and cannot be done in “ Ingoal.” No. 6 reads: “ Ball does not cross the when a free kick is taken behind the same. Penalty: Scrummage five yards out from goal line.” Then there appears in brackets: “ (If ball rebounds off goal post —re-kick.” This misled us, and, under the impression that it was a new ruling, we wrote as above. If we turn, however, to rule 10 we obtain a clear ruling as to when to re-kick can be taken. We quote the paragraph in full, and will our readers please accept and make mental note of this correction? We apologise, but Homer must nod sometimes, and we aro human. Here is the quotation on the point: “In the event of a free kick being taken from behind the goal line, and the ball strikes the goal posts or crossbar and rebounds into touch-in-gal or over the dead-ball line, another kick must be taken, and the ball cross the goal line.” In addition, turn to page 15 of lest year’s Handbook, and you will notice that one of the notee end rulings relating to e try reeds: “H en attacking

player secures the ball from a free kick taken behind the goal line by the defending side, and puts it dwn in “ ingoal, a try must be awarded, even though the ball has not crossed the goal line” Now we are “ all clear ” again. It is a case of first man on the ball, if possible by the attacking side if the ball rebounds from goal post and does not go into touch-in-goal or cross the deadball lines. In such cases a re-kick must be taken.