THE WING FORWARD.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 16091, 3 April 1923, Page 6

THE WING FORWARD.

PENALTIES FOR OBSTRUCTION

(Special to file Herald.). CHRISTCHURCH, this day.

At the N.Z. Rugby referees’ conference, the following remit was submitted by the Otago Referees’ Association: — “The Otago association is of opinion that the penalties pertaining to wing forwards are not sufficiently exercised by referees in general.” “The man on the side of the scrummage to-day is an obstructionist,” Said the president (Mr. Dan McKenzie', of Wellington). The whqjo idea, of the pre-sent-day wing forward, he declared, was entirely different from that of the original wing forward, who had been introduced to protect the half-back and open up the game. The remedy wtis to penalise him severely every time he handled an opponent without the ball. Tho application of the advantage rule was of no use.

Mr. II- McFarlane (Otngo), in support of the remit, said that tho wing forward in many respects was a menace to the game. Even .in big matches wing forwards could frequently be seen obstructing each other- There was no doubt that tho off-side and obstruction rules were not enforced against- wing forwards.

Mr. Moffiit (Wellington) considered that if the conference could come to a decision on the matter it would do a great deal to remove a subject of comment, and to promote a uniformity of rulings among referees throughout New Zealand. Attempts by one wing forward to interfere with the opposing wing forward ought to he severely penalised, especially ip preventing the other man from coming round the scrummageMr. H. J. McKenzie (Wairarapa), said that the whig forward was a “necessary evil,” and could pot be abolished* The only thing to be done was to be strict with him. It was possible for a really good wing forward game to be played. He had seen one such last season in Hawke’s Bay.

The president moved; “That it bp a recommendation from this conference to dll Associations , throughout New Zealand that the wing forward bp treated as an obstructionist, aqd that every time ho handlps or obstructs ap opponent, no matter whprp the hall is, a free kick be awarded against hint-”

In reply ter a suggestion that it might be hard to decide which wing forward was to blame when both were “fighting,” the president said that the point could bp loft to tho discretion of the referee, The referee ought to be able to docido. The man on the defensive wns generally at fault.. Several delegates said it „wns exceedingly difficult to deal with the Yving forward without actually ordering him off the field, and that where there were many spectators a referee was strongly tempted to let tho infringements pass rather than spoil the game. A suggestion by Mr. Pauli (Auckland) jhaf tho New Zealand Rugby Union be rp'cqipmpndpd to amend the laws of the gamp, ip order to deal with this matter, was not pursued. , .■ Tho motion was carried without dissent