IMAGINARY LINE CRITICISED

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 671, 24 May 1929, Page 1

IMAGINARY LINE CRITICISED

Harmful Rule in Rugby CONDEMNED BY SELECTOR AUCKLAND is in glorious isolation in playing a rule which encourages slow hooking and incompetence on the part of halves and inside backs. This is the substance of the views of Mr. V. R. Meredith, Auckland's Rugby selector, on the much debated imaginary line rule.

“QjINCE selecting/' says Mr. Meredith, “I have practically every year suggested that the Auckland Union consider falling into line with the other unions in this part of the Rugby world. “The imaginary line rule prevents any player not in the scrum advancing beyond a line drawn through the back of his own scrum till the ball is clear of the back of the opposing scrum, and no forward can break from his own scrum till the ball is clear of the other scrum. “The object of all games is to develop quickness of thought and action, and in as much as they do this they are beneficial to those taking part. Yet the rule is specially designed to thwart this object. An undue latitude is given the slow half-back to enable him to get a ball away in spite of his slowness. Similarly, the inside backs are given additional room to work in. which enables the incompetent to be as effective as his quicker and nippier opponent. The result is obvious. Players develop in accord with the conditions under which they play. “We will never develop a quick passing half-back because there is no incentive for him to be quick. He can be as slow as he likes and is immune from interference from the defence. “Similarly, we will not produce the resourcful inside back. He is deliberately given the room to work in which under the ordinary rule he has to make foir himself by the use of his brain and fast concerted action between himself and his half-back. It is a good rule for the mediocre player and a bad one for the first-rater. Unfortunately, however, the effect is to take away all incentive to players to quicken up. The result is already obvious in the standard of half-back play and inside play in Auckland. The older players have now about all dropped out and the present generation are the product of this rule. The object of the rule is presumably to brighten up ~play» be., by making it as easy for the inferior player as the good one to open up back movements. A fair analogy would be if a bowler was compelled to bowl long hops so the public could see bright cricket. They might, but the standard of batting would fall.” POOR HEELING The rule had further deteriorating j influences on the game, particularly forward play. Quick, clean heeling should be an asset to a side. It was now of no importance. The ball could hang for minutes in the scrum, but the defence could not move. Accordingly no attention was paid to devel- 1 oping efficient scrumming. The for- j ward rush which mostly had its origin ! In fast breaking forwards getting

possession of the ball was almost a thing of the past, as forwards could [ | not. break. There HQS a grave ten--1 | dency to turn the whole game into ' a monotonous series of back move ments and to sacrifice every other > phase of the game to that end. Auckland had brought in variousi ’ i suggested amendments for the improvement of the game. chief of : j which w as the kicking into touch rule : ! The rest of New Zealand and Ausi i tralia had adopted most of those j amendments and were loyally playing - 1 what had been agreed upon. But not , j one province or union in either counr | try would look at this particular rule, . ' and Auckland was iu glorious isolation 1j in insisting 011 playing it. Possibly i ! the others were all w T rong. : J Auckland players were seriously ; handicapped in interproviuciai games. ; | The forwards were at sea in regard . ; to breaking; the half and inside backs : suddenly found themselves crowded • | by opponents iu a way they were unaccustomed to, and naturally did not readily adjust themselves to the new conditions, with the result the side suffered. Similarly, they did not know enough to crowd the other side by coming up quickly on the defence on the other side securing possession. TEACHING THE REPS. “On selection of a representative side,” said Mr. Meredith, “the first thing that has to be done is relentlessly to practice the forwards breaking on to the half and five-eighths to teach them to forget all they have been doing in club football during the season. With a leavening of old players this can be done with a certain amount of success. However, they all relapse again in the ensuing club season or in the club matches between representative fixtures. In this latter case we have certain players playing under two entirely different conditions on alternate Saturdays, to the deterioration of their play under j either. j “Further, under the rule as played in Auckland, there is remarkable divergence in the ruling of referees j from an allowance of practically free i breaking so long as they on side to rigid adherence of the rule. “I do not think any fonwards really know what they are entitled to do. 1 have always been strongly opposed to the rule, as in my opinion it is undermining some of the most scientific phases of the game. Nothing can be good that encourages incompetence, j “Of the movement started by the Grammar Old Boys’ Club for the elimj ination of the rule I know nothing, | not having been connected with that ; club for many years. The views I i now express are those I have always held,” concluded Mr. Meredith.