Proposed Reduction In Number Of Players In Rugby Team Draws Comment From Administrators

Southland Times, Issue 23796, 19 April 1939, Page 11

Proposed Reduction In Number Of Players In Rugby Team Draws Comment From Administrators

New Zealand opinion is very much divided on the revolutionary suggestion of a former president of the English Rugby Union (Mr W. T. Pearce) that a Rugby Union team consist of 13 players—seven forwards packing 2-3-2, two half-backs, three three-quarters and a full-back.

There are many advocates of a change which they claim would tend to speed up the game and make it more spectacular, and there are just as many who would not tamper with the constitution or alter the rules. Some, including Mr S. S. Dean, chairman of the management committee of the New Zealand Rugby Union, are in favour of meeting the reformers half-way and think that Rugby would be seen at its best if played by 14 a-side without a wing-forward. Two former New Zealand selectors, Messrs A. J. Geddes (Invercargill )and J. T. Burrows (Christchurch) are opposed to any change, and several prominent All Blacks favour a reduction.

Mr Pearce’s suggested reform caused a stir in English Rugby circles. He contends that the elimination of winging forwards would enable the play to be opened up more. Moreover, he claims that the spoiling forward of today was causing a general deterioration of play all round. Opponents in England to Mr Pearce’s plan say that Rugby was intended to be a form of recreation and not a spectacle. The reduction of the number of players would be most unpopular with clubs and schools they say. Many schools in England stuck to the game because it enabled a big number of boys to play. “Definitely no,” was Mr Geddes’s answer to a question whether he favoured the proposed alteration. “There is no need to tamper with the present system,” he added. Mr Harold Strang, a member of the Southland selection committee, held an opposite view and said that the game would become more attractive and spectacular if the number of players in a team was reduced. “We have been in the shadow of the League game long enough,” he declared. “That code has shown what can be done with fewer nlayers in a team.

With 13 players a-side we would see more constructive Rugby and less destructive football. It would mean that we could revert to the 2-3-2 scrum formation which not only made New Zealand famous as a Rugby country but is the only formation which ensures clean heeling and a quick despatch of the ball.”

Mr Strang pointed out that the scrum was a means of re-starting the game after a minor breach of the rules, but instead of making that means as simple as possible, restrictions had been introduced —fair enough to both teams in a game—which were the causes of most of the hold-ups in the game. A reduction in the number of players in a team would at least enable the old scrum formation to be reintroduced and give both backs and forwards the chance to play bright and open Rugby. PLAY OF SPRINGBOKS The play of the 1937 Springboks team should be sufficient answer to the question, said Mr L. R. Lopdell, another member of the Southland selection committee. He was opposed to any change and was quite convinced that bright Rugby could be played with 15 a-side. He made one reservation. That

was that New Zealand would have to forget all about its traditional forward play of past years and do away with wing-forwards and winging forwards. “We should adopt the Springbok lesson and see that our forwards apply themselves to forward work and nothing but forward work,” said Mr Lopdell. “I think the idea of 14 or 13 men a-side is just dodging the issue. If our forwards are educated to play as forwards we should have no fears about the spoiler. Give each forward a part to play in the scrum and he will have no time to roam about on a destructive mission. The South Africans proved to us that Rugby of the highest standard and of the brightest nature could be played with 15 a-side. An improvement in the standard of play is needed more than anything else. When our game is perfected will be time enough to talk about reducing the size of the team. The rules of Rugby Union are all right, provided the players abide by them.” W. C. Dally, N. P. McGregor, R. R. Masters, and A. C. C. Robilliard are among former Canterbury All Blacks who favour a reduction.

“Try the new idea out,” said one. “There’s too much stodgy type of play.” Other former players agreed that it was becoming more and more difficult to get the ball away quickly from the scrummage and this was holding up the whole game. “Winging forwards are mostly to blame, so why not take drastic measures,” urged a prominent official. “Abolish the winging forwards by cutting the side down to thirteen and then we will get more open play and less injury too, by the way.” “OPEN AND FASTER” “Any idea for speeding up the game and making it open is worth considering,” said E. N. Greatorex, former Australian forward. “If the Rugby Union wants to attract the crowds—and it does want to—play will have to be livened up. The elimination of two players from a team would certainly make the play open, faster and more spectacular.”

Mr H. Davis, a New Zealand Rugby selector from 1923 to 1927 said: “To re-

duce the Rugby team to 13 would be going too far. The best plan would be to go back to our old New Zealand formation of the two-fronted scrum, and omit the wing-forward altogether. Yes, I would leave him out and make it a team of 14 men. Always in the past, the wing-forward was the bone of contention, and with him out of the way we could move ahead with the 2-3-2 scrum, the most effective in the world. “If we continued with the present three-fronted scrum, then New Zealand would have to adopt the four threequarters system, with the idea of getting the inside backs further away from the scrum. Under this method, the fiy-half or five-eighths would be twenty yards from the scrum-half, and that would give him greater opportunity of opening up the game. That is with 15 men a-side. But it would be better to make Rugby everywhere into 14 a-side. DALLEY FAVOURS FOURTEEN Other opinions were given as follows:— W. C. Dailey, half-back for the All Blacks of 1924, 1926, 1928 and 1929:— “Rugby’s only troubles at present are with the winging forward and with hooking. Cut out one forward from the team, and you would not only lessen both troubles, but you would give your backs more room to work. I favour 14 men, with the 2-3-2 scrum, the best scrum of the lot. It would be a great move if one man were cut out. I hope to see it.” C. J. Oliver, vice-captain of the 1935 All Blacks: “Teams style their play according to the weather, the ideas of their coaches and other factors. A lot of the trouble in Rugby starts in the scrums, possibly because of tactics thought out beforehand by a coach. Thus, if there were 10, 11 or 12 men a-side, little difference would result. In 1935, there were no winging forwards in the Irish Test at Dublin. Ireland’s pack was absolutely tile best we met anywhere. When such play is possible, there is no need to revert to thirteen a-side or even 14 a-side.

“A lot depends on the weather,” added Oliver. “If the ground is dry, a team will decide to keep the game open. If wet, play will be closed up. There is also the point that a team may have just ordinary forwards and brilliant backs, or vice versa. In the Irish Test I speak of, the home pack was really better than New Zealand’s, but we managed to get the ball from set scrums through the superiority of Hadlee as hooker.