FULL APPROVAL

Southland Times, Issue 21661, 24 March 1932, Page 8

FULL APPROVAL

INTERNATIONAL RULES DISCUSSION BY RUGBY DELEGATES MOTION ADOPTED At the annual meeting of delegates .to the Southland Rugby Union last evening it was unanimously decided to approve of the adoption of the NeW Zealand Union of the internationl rules in their entirety. In moving a motion on these lines, Mr A. J. Geddes referred to the controversy in 1922 at the annual meeting of the New Zealand Union at which he was present. He then had advocated that the union stop tinkering with the rules and get down to bedrock so that there be uniformity throughout the Efripire. He submitted that the international rules precluded the employment of the 2-3-2 scrum as they stated that the ball must pass three feet, and that these feet must be stationary. Furthermore the wing-forward had to be behind the ball when it was in the scrum. But quite apart from these factors he considered the time had come when they should get down to bedrock and have uniformity. It either meant secession from England or the adoption of the international rules. South Africa was not in favour of the New Zealand rules, and it was unlikely that Australia would conform to the New Zealand rules. The Dominion was going to be isolated if it did not fall into line. The biggest game New Zealand would have if it kept to its own rules would be the North-South Island game. The key of the whole situation was that New Zealand sadly lacked inside backs largely because the first fiveeighth had to keep his eye on the wingforward as well as on his opponent. Mr Geddes said that he could mention several promising young players who had been badly knocked about by wing-forwards. In the recent tour of the British team wingforwards had been instructed to harass Spong. These tactics were not in the true spirit of football. In the British and Australian team the inside backs had been yards faster than the New Zealand inside backs. Why? Because they had more room to work in and more chance to develop their play. If New Zealand did adopt international rules it was not bound to play the 3-2-3 scrum. The 3-4-1 formation could be used. The Springboks had adopted this successfully in their English tour. But it certainly appeared from the international rules that the eight forwards had to be in the scrum. His experience as a New Zealand selector had taught him that the wing-forward had a bad effect on inside back play. New Zealand had everything to gain by adopting the international rules. The motion was seconded by Mr J. Campbell (Northern). Mr J. R. Bell said that while he did not wish to move an amendment he would like to make some remarks on the subject. He was not wholly in favour of adopting the international rules in their entirety. New Zealand had in the past produced as good wing-forwards and inside backs as any other country. He would not agree that the wing-forward killed five-eighths’ play. In overseas teams there had been men on the side of the scrum who were more deadly on opposing backs than were New Zealand wing-forwards. In his opinion New Zealand had spoilt its own wing-forwards by not allowing them to obstruct each other. When they were so engaged the backs had a clear passage. No doubt there were a good many arguments for and against the abolition of the wing-forward, but he would like to see the system which had served New Zealand so well carried on. The motion was approved.