RUGBY.

Otago Witness, Issue 3870, 15 May 1928, Page 53

RUGBY.

By FULL BACK.

ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS. “ Shag Point." —The rule on the point reads as follows:—“In all matches a referee and two touch-line judges _must be appointed, or mutually agreed upon." A referee has the power to over-rule a touch-line judge, and as a matter of fact he may remove him if he is not satisfied with his decisions. The practice in Dunedin is for the referee to appoint the two line umpires. On the actual rule, my correspondent will see that if one team would not agree to a touch-line judge, another - touch-line judge must be appointed. “ Invercargill."—A tackle is when the holder of the ball is held by one or more players of the opposite side so that he cannot pass or play the ball. A THIRD NEW ZEALAND TEAM. The opinion expressed at the annual meeting of the New Zealand Union that with the absence of 29 players from New Zealand we would only be able now to raise a “third” New Zealand team is to my mind ridiculous. I would not say that a team could be selected to-day from New Zealand players to meet the touring All Blacks, but it would at least give it plenty to do to beat it. For instance, take Otago’s reEresentation in the All Black side—indsay and Hore. I am not discrediting Hore’s play in any way when I say that there are still forwards in Dunedin his equal in football ability, and on Matheson’s showing he is a cleverer centre than Lindsay, although he is not so strongly built as the All Black. Then again, take Holden. He is every bit as good a half-back as Kilby. The same comparisons could be made regarding players left behind right through New Zealand. Mr J. Mitchell scored heavily when the discussion was taking place regarding the excessive amount of touring now going on when he remarked that New Zealand Union had considered it would not be fair to our football to send a New Zealand team to New South Wales this season, as it would be only a “ third ” team, but on the other hand, a New South Wales team was to be invited to come here. The logic of this is that a New Zealand team going to New South Wales would be a “ third ” grade team, but if it stayed behind it would not. Probably it would be a “ second ’’ team, and maybe a “ first.” At any rate, New South Wales will have all its work cut out to beat our “third!” team in the tests. VISITING TEAMS. Dunedin followers of football will have plenty of matches between Otago and visiting teams this season, judging by the following list:— July 25 (Wednesday).—Wairarapa v. Otago. August 11.—Auckland v. Otago. August 15 (Wednesday).—Manuwhenua v. Otago. August 18 (pencilled) .—Otago charity match. August 25. —Canterbury v. Otago. September 1. —Payne Shield match. September 15. —Wellington v. Otago. September 22. —Southland v. Otago. September 29.—South Canterbury v. Otago. September .B.—New South Wales v. New Zealand (second test). September s.—Southland v. Otago, at Invercargill. The Southland match will be the only one played by Otago this season outside of Dunedin. REFEREES’ RULINGS. The conference between the Management Committee of the Otago Union and the executive of the Referees’ Association last week served to bring out two objectionable rulings—to my way of thinking, at any rate. The discussion chiefly centred round a difference in ruling between New Zealand referees and those in England on two important points. The English laws of the game state that a player cannot push a player over from behind “ unless he is stooping to pick up the ball.” The English laws also provide for a serum as a penalty where a man passes the ball forward, and another player on his side takes it off-side. Now in New Zealand the referees’ rule that a man must not push another man from behind when he is running for the ball under any circumstances, and as a matter of fact the words quoted above have been removed from their handbook, and quite rightly so. There is more danger in pushing a man who is stooping down for the ball than in pushing him when he is standing up and running for the ball. Then, again, the penalty of a free kick is usually given in New Zealand for the pass forward. The referees here penalise the second offence; the referees in England penalise the first. The penalty of a free kick, to my mind, is far too severe for the _ offence. The New Zealand referees, in this instance, in my opinion, rule wrongly, though, of course, they have to use a certain discretion —a discretion based on the point whether they consider the player “wilfully” threw the ball forward. During my active connection with the game—maybe, the “ Stone Age,” as was remarked at the conference by Mr A. J. Haub to Mr J. King when the latter spoke of the days he played the game —the penalty under the circumstances referred to was a scrum, and to suggest that players “ wilfully ” throw the ball forward under the general playing conditions is, to my mind, absurd. The excitement of the game, the call for the ball from the supporting player, and the general atmosphere of the playing field constitute an urge to the man to throw the pass, but I would not say that the word “wilful” or “intent” could be brought into action in the great majority of cases. There is no question that, as the referees on Monday night claimed, there should be a conformity of ruling between

New Zealand and England, but there is no reason why New Zealand should not improve on the rulings of the parent body. My attitude, in effect, is that the English Union is right in its ruling regarding the penalty of a scrum, but quite wrong in regard to its other ruling, pushing a man over. It appears, however, that any New Zealand ruling not in accord with that of the English Union can be upset on appeal to the Home body. In connection with the throw forward offence, an incident in a game in which I took part in the “ Stone Age,” comes vividly to mind. It was on the Caledonian Ground, against Dunedin. Our forwards were dominating the opposition, and our half-back was consistently playing to the blind side to our fast three-quarter. Time and again the ball was sent out to him, and time and again he either fumbled it or took a forward pass offside. Our half-back, on that occasion, was certainly not wilfully throwing the ball forward, and our side was penalised by scrums. At last our fast winger took the ball well and truly, and was clear for the line when a Dunedin man was seen by the referee to hit one of our men in the jaw. He promptly blew the whistle, stopped the game, ordered the man off. the impending try' couid not be scored, and we lost the match!