RUGBY

Southland Times, Issue 20771, 11 May 1929, Page 18

RUGBY

THE WING FORWARD ARE LESSONS MISREAD? tS HE THE REAL DESTROYER?

<By

Censorinus.)

In considering the case of modern football it is desirable to take heed of the lessons of the past as well as of those of the present, and that is why I am tempted to enter the arena as the protector of the wing-forward, the rover or whatever he may be called. Badly shaken in South Africa New Zealand football is examining itself anxiously, and is obviously seeking to make the wing-forward a human sacrifice to propitiate the gods of football; but the danger, it seems to me, lies not so much in ignoring lessons as in misreading them. The Springboks frequently overmatched the All Black scrum in South Africa, but the explanation was in the neglect of the All Black forwards. They forgot their primary duties in the scrum; they were giving too much attention to breaking away, and that preoccupation, coupled with faulty packing and insufficient skill in hooking, was the cause of the defeat. Was the seven scrum really proved ineffectual? The scrumming of the 1928 All Blacks was at fault, not the seven scrum. Now, it is necessary first to examine the reasons advanced for the abolition of the wing-forward. First is the plea for an eight scrum; second is the argument that he spoils back play; third is that he is useless and a giver of penalties to the other side. The first two points are inextricably mixed. One is tempted always to quote from the “other side” when seeking arguments anti so I take a small paragraph from Mr J. W. Stead's article of last week since it destroys the whole of his case and establishes my own: “Let me here say that for a long period we did not regard the winger as the calamity he now is, for we still had the compact scrum anti the delightful quick hookings which are of the past, now, and it took a particular artist in the position of winger to catch the scrum-half in possession.” Here we have the important points. The art of scrumming is lost, clean hooking is hardly ever seen. I have been told of one club in the old days which formed twelve hundred scrums in a hall in one season, in the course of its training. Can any club or •any team in these days say that it has given one-tenth of that amount to scrum training? We know very well that the packing of the scrum Ls little more than a formality and that definite scrum training is almost unknown, just as we know that some teams have made a deliberate practice of holding the ball in the back row after it is hooked until they have lost the knack of letting it out clean. As Mr Stead says, the wingforward in the old days was not regarded as the calamity he is now because the serums were properly packed and dean hooking was the vogue. In those days, it must be remembered there was brilliant back play and brilliant backs. If that is the case, and it cannot be denied, how can the wing-forward be blamed for the disappearance of something which flourished when he was playing, even when there were two wing-forwards? With clean hooking and sound half-back work, no wing-forward can smother a back attack at the base of the scrum and if the

scrum is regarded as an entity and wing''orwards kept behind the imaginary line Ui\wn through the middle of the scrum until it is actually out of the scrum, there can be no fighting or jostling at the side, but when that point is being made the breakaway forward must be watched, because he also must be prevented from breaking out of the scrum until the ball is actually out. With clean hooking he cannot do much damage. Clean hooking is the reply to the wing-forward, and it means smarter play among the inSide backs. Is it not possible that the removal of the wingforward will lead to slackness in the inside backs? By all means let the referee put the ball into the scrum. That makes for fair scrumming and for quicker play. Can the wing-forward be other than a destructive agent? We have all seen wingforwards who went for the constructive game, who made a link between the forwards and the backs. Call him a rover, call him,, a third five-eighth and he is still a useful player. If he is put into the scrum we must go either to these three-two-three formation, which is not so scientifically strong as the two-three-two, and if he is made an extra man behind the back row he is merely in the way. If be clasps the back row men the tendency will be to divert the lines of energy outward and he will lengthen the scrum without adding to its strength offensively or defensively. The formation was discarded in favour of the two-three-two formation for good reasons and those reasons apply to-day. My point is that the trouble lies in the scrum, not in the wing-forward and the passage I have quoted from Mr Stead’s article shows that he is of the same opinion. His remedy is to abolish the wing-forward, but clearly that will not help the scrum. Isn’t the sounder course to attend to the serum, perfect that and then see about the wing-forward? Don’t let us adopt the course that will suit our Rugby foes, who have never liked the wing-forward because he interferes with their slower style. The scrum demands attention; let us see to that. Let the clubs study the scrum and take a leaf out of that old club’s book: pack scrum after scrum until it is a well-trained unit and can give us clean hooking. If we do that and keep quick inside back play, the wing-forward will not spoil the back game but will speed it up and link the two sections of the team. Suggestions that the tackling by the wing-forward obstructs play, always reminds me of that old expert who confounded some of these advocates by solemnly declaring (although his tongue was touching his cheek) that every man who tackled shopld be penalized bcause he was obstructing the game. They are on a par with the idea that the amended rules restricting the kicking into touch obstructs the game by giving the defence undue advantages, but doesn’t the old rule put a premium on obstruction by encouraging line kicking, so that a side may edge its way along the side of the field and attempt back play on when it is within ten yards or so of the line? We know that it did do that. Which brings me to the proposal to play the international rules in New Zealand to prepare for the British team in 1930. Our amended rules are restrictive and any team might reasonably ask for time to play under them before going into Test football, but when kickers’ powers are enlarged there is not the same need for this. Why then change our football? The proposal suggests that the visit of the All Blacks to the Old Country has been forgotten and that the panic, from South Africa has not yet dissipated. It is not necessary to hear Mr Ilornig on this poirjt—Commonsense is enough. I would like to ask if the International Code is to be imposed on New Zealand football for one or two seasons, will the rules include the ■provision that there be no replacements? And that at the interval all the players shall remain on the field? That last one is in-

human and idiotic. I can recall a picture of an English and an Irish team in sleet and ruin obeying that rule during an interval in an International match. It was enough to convince me that the great men who control Rugby football are hopelessly conservative and that the International code is absurd is places. In these tests it is the New Zealand style against the British, and changes should be scrutinized very carefully.