VOICE OF THE PEOPLE

Taranaki Daily News, 2 June 1934, Page 9

VOICE OF THE PEOPLE

VIEWS ON CURRENT TOPICS REHABILITATION OF INDUSTRY. NEED FOR PLANNED DISTRIBUTION. (To the Editor.) Sir,—The question of rebuilding industry is receiving serious attention in England on the lines of national planning. One of the leading men in this movement, Mr. I. M. Sieff, suggests three new mechanisms. He points out that marketing is too often regarded as an isolated process in trade. Unplanned marketing leads to uncertainty and irregularity which adversely affects production. If marketing could be systematically planned so as to secure an even load on all productive plant, the costs to the consumer would be reduced with a consequently increased distribution. He suggests the setting up of marketing boards whose duty would be to watch the market as a whole, to ascertain definitely what the "demand really is and so handle the stream of orders that they are not broken up economically into small quantities, but bulked and placed where they can be filled at the lowest price. Mr. Sieff argues that by taking away from the - producing units the task .of maintaining old markets and finding new ones, the producer would be freer to concentrate on the technique of production which is their chief job. The marketing board, however, he points out, cannot solve the problems of the producer without action on his part. He therefore advocates producer’s associations to co-ordinate and work together towards the most effective production of each class of article. These two bodies would be the instruments by which the actual process of production and distribution would be remoulded in accordance with the ascertained needs of the consumer. When these are functioning he visualises industrial councils representing,, capital, management and labour to deal with matters which affect industry as a' whole. The basic principle of his proposals is that individual firms are really constituent parts of an industry rather than competitive units. —We are, etc., The New Zealand Welfare League. Wellington, June 1.

RUGBY ODDITIES. (To the Editor.) — Sir,—Before entering into details of “Rugby oddities," I would state that ,in my capacity as an old player and active supporter I have watched a senior Rugby match each Saturday and have conversed with team members of the competing teams both at practice before and after the matches. Also, I have no wish or intention to make personal attacks or criticisms against any association or member of an association, but it is certainly time these errors of judgment, or perhaps errors of ignorance,, should .be pointed out. First, as to Taranaki representative selection. Both teams, A and B, are fully representative of the province’s strength, and are selected on ability, but why choose players that are at present standing on the line through injuries? In the A-team G. Fowler (Clifton) is well worth his place when fit, but he has been out for three weeks with an injury. There are other young hookers in the province, Preston (Okaiawa) for one. Why not let him have a trial? Then there is the chocsing of G. Sullivan (Tukapa) as emergency to the. B representatives. Sullivan broke his collarbone last season and has been on the line the last two Saturdays with another injury to the same shoulder. Yet his club mate N. Webster, the personification of fitness and a good scoring man, who is equally as reliable, is not considered as good as a partly “crocked” player. Now as to control of the matches. The Taranaki Rugby Union executive patted itself on the back at its last meeting because of the stricter ruling in obstruction tactics, but can the members not see the obvious errors of ignorance that occur in other departments of the administration of the whistle? It is a poor policy that allows players in general to express dissatisfaction with a certain referee, not through his partiality to one team or the other, which is not questioned, but because of his mis-ruling. These are some glaring instances. (1) A charging forward kicked the ball past the full-back, who immediately chased the ball and kicked it over the goal.line and dead ball line. The referee awarded a 25 yards- drop-out instead of a five yards scrum. (2) A forward dived over from a lineout and scored, but forwards from the opposing side also dived over with him and a “sacks-on-the-mill”was formed. The referee did not see the try, so he awarded a 25 yards drop-out, despite the fact that the scoring forward still held the ball. This should surely have been a five yards scrum. (3) A three-quarter, running up fast, kicked past the full-back, and the ball rolled slowly over the goal line. The full back illegally tackled the. player following up, and the, referee awarded a free kick. Should not a.’penalty try have been awarded?

(4) The wing-forward is beginning to come into his own again, and four teams are playing a forward in this position, but repeatedly the wing-rforward stands at the side of the scrum with a foot on each side bf the opening, both before and after putting the ball in. Should he not retire behind the ball or centre line of the Scrum?

(5) A full-back attempted to line in the comer, and the ball swerved out of bounds in mid-air and came in-field again. The line Umpire raised the'flag, the whistle was sounded, and a line-otit commenced to form. A three-quarter, not hearing the whistle, followed up and kicked past the defendirig full-back, who obstructed him while running back. Despite the whistle having already sounded and a line-out forming, the referee awarded a penalty kick. The kick, one might add, was the difference between the loss and the draw to the penalised side.

Instead of an oral test, as is the general rule of examining aspiring referees, would it not be better if a committee of, say, two was appointed to examine each referee actually in charge of a game, and if he is in error to point out that error and report on his performance? This should keep the better referees to the senior games, and delegate the more uncertain men to the lower grades. Trusting these few words will lead to a little more tightening-up of the control of Rugby.—l am, etc., OLD PLAYER. New Plymouth, May 31.