TACTLESS?

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 985, 30 May 1930, Page 6

TACTLESS?

BRITISH RUGBY MANAGER CHALLENGED WELLINGTON OPINION Special to THE SUN WELLINGTON, Thursday. It is possible that Mr. James Baxter, manager of the touring British Rugby team, has at least learnt one thing since he arrived in New Zealand. And that is that when he challenges anything in the game it is not cnly the players of the Dominion that lie has to deal with, but every follower of the code. First of all came the question of colours, which provoked newspaper correspondence in all parts of New Zealand, but for which he can hardly be personally blamed, even though he is president of the Rugby Football Union. Now he comes forward into the news columns of the papers again with a severe attack on the wing-forward, whom he designates as “nothing more or less than a cheat." It is possible that he said more than he intended, the occasion being one in which he and his team were being entertained after their victory over Taranaki. It is also possible that he was somewhat elated over the victory, and was inclined to do the “heavy father" in the matter of advice to a younger side. Whatever his reasons were, however, there seems to be a general opinion that he “spoke out of bis turn.” Even in New Zealand there are a number of followers of the game who would gladly see the wing forward abolished, and they have said so on many occasions prior to Mr. Baxter bringing forward his untactful opinions. But what may be said by somebody within the household without umbrage being taken becomes an insult when voiced by the visitor. It is here that Mr. Baxter has erred, and is likely to pay for his over-eagerness by some very plain speaking from his opponents. It seems that prominent members of the New Zealand Rugby Union who have refused to voice an opinion on Mr. Baxter’s remarks have tendered him a lesson in courtesy which it is hoped he will benefit from for the remainder of the tour. RULE OR CUSTOM? This is not all. however, for he seems anxious and “eager to set his hosts’ house in order" in other directions. Ho declares that the interval usually observed in New Zealand between the two spells, during which the two teams leave the field, is contrary to the international law's governing Rugby, and that in future matches players must not leave* the field. But here again he is wrong. The law says quite plainly that there shall he an interval of not more than five minutes, but it has nothing to say in what manner each team shall spend that period. The Football Union has expressed a wish, however, that teams remain on the field. It seems that he has confused rule and custom, and has spoken without due consideration, for one can hardly think that he expects to compel New Zealand to adopt some of the things that are customary at Home. In this Dominion it is customary for teams to leave the field for a breather, and everybody agrees that they deserve a few minutes quiet spell away from the elements which are not always too kind in the winter time. It is customary tor New Zealand teams to follow this course, and as it breaks no Rugby law then he should bow to the routine of the country he is visiting. Mr. Baxter also lias something to say about playing with an extra ball on the line, which is also customary in New Zealand, not only in representative and senior grade matches, but in games right down through the grade. Each team brings a ball to the ground on which it is to play, and one is held in reserve and only brought into play when the other lias been kicked some distance, thus obviating delays which are both irritating to the spectators and equally objectionable to the player. The use of two balls prevents undue waste of time, which is frequently resorted to by a team which is only a few points ahead of its opponent. If a fence is handy when the leaders are being attacked a hefty boot behind the ball often gives them the respite which they desire and helps to nullify the good work of the attackers. It is to obviate such actions that the New Zealand practice of two balls has been generally observed. And there is nothing in the International Laws to say it is illegal. The rule merely outlines the size and shape of the ball, but does not say whether there shall be one ball on the ground and only one. Here again custom is outraged by the attitude adopted by Mr. Baxter. CONFERENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD To some extent Wellington opinion seems to lean to the idea that the New Zealand Rugby Union has made a mistake in not first of all holding a conference with the visitors, when it would have been possible for the two parties to have come to some agreement on the matters now in dispute. If this had been done a circular letter could have been sent to all unions and referees* associations throughout the Dominion, and there would have been no need for Mr. Baxter and the cuptain of the British team to confer with the referee before each match as has apparently become the practice to date. But if this conference is to take place before each match between the leaders of the British team and the referee then the captain of the New Zealand team should also be invited to be present so that he may understand what is expected of his team, and not have to wait until the ball is in play to learn of some reading of the rules which has never before bene practised in New Zealand. Differences in the reading of rules, particularly in a game so over-legis-lated for as Rugby football, are bound to occur, where two countries are so distantly separated as Britain and New | Zealand. It occurs between New Zealand and New South Wales, who meet almost every year, so it is certain to occur in the present case. But all theme difficulties can be overcome if a little courtesy is observed, and if the visitors will bow to custom where it does not break any International Law governing the game.