FOOTBAIL

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18635, 2 August 1930, Page 16

FOOTBAIL

Old Boys and Temuka will meet on Fraser Park this afternoon for the Beri Cup. In the final of the Skinner Cup, Old Boys were clearly the better side, but to-day Temuka may prove that their previous form was wrong. In any case, the match should e well worth seeing.

South Canterbury sadly missed a reliable place kick at Oamaru on Saturday. Seven points were thrown away from easy positions.

North Otago were a trifle lucky to get out of it with a drawn game against South Canterbury at Oamaru last week. South Canterbury had by far the better of the game, due chiefly

to the fine showing of the Green and Black forwards. North Otago staged two lightning back movements in the last few minutes of the game, and from both of these tries were scored. Up till then the North Otago backs had not been impressive. Their handling was uncertain, and there was an entire lack of enterprise. Hunter, at half, alone shone, his dashes on the blind side keeping the visiting backs on the qui vive the whole time.

The decision of the New South Wales Rugby Union to refuse reinstatement to two players who had played a professional version of the game has considerably tangled things up in Sydney. Some years ago the union announced that on and after a certain date the door would be closed to repentant professional sinners. All that has been forgotten, and since then dozens of men who have played the professional game have been readmitted to the fold, including several of the Waratahs, and practically every playing member of the revived Queensland Rugby Union. Something similar has also happened in New Zealand.

South Canterbury possess a light but splendid pack of forwards at the present time, and if the backs could be strengthened, a really first-class side would be fielded. There is need, howveer. for a good wing-forward. Simmers. on his display against Wanganui, was superior to L. Neutze, who played in Oamaru on Saturday. Neutze made one or two openings from the line-outs, but otherwise was not impressive. Adkins or Giddings are both good loose forwards, and if Coxhead was available for the pack either of the first mentioned players would fill the wingforward position to advantage. R. Carleton, fo Waimate, fully justified his inclusion in the team, and now that Roper appears to be going better, Strang could be retained at five-eighth with Carleton. Gaffaney is not up to standard, so the centre position must go to either Neutze or Murray. The latter was not well served at centre at Oamaru, and when put on the wing, made some very determined runs. Wilkes did not shine on attack, but his defence was sound.

On paper. North Otago had a very strong pack of forwards in the field against South Canterbury at Oamaru, but they failed to live up to their reputation. They were outclassed in the line-outs and in the loose, and just about held their own in the tight. R. Cameron, who played a good game for the Combined team against Britain, was the best of the home forwards, with Direen and Sim not far behind.

It is surprising in these modern days to find that even in international games there are to be found players foolish enough to question the referee’s decision on the field of play, says the “Dominion.” F. D. Prentice, the British captain, was not at all satisfied with the referee’s rulings in the match at Timaru, and again at Auckland on Saturday one of the northern forwards was ordered off the field. The Press Association report of the match is somewhat vague on the reason for the dismissal of L. Knight by the referee, Mr J. Moffit, of Wellington. “At this stage,” the report briefly states, “the referee spoke to L. Knight, who was ordered off.” Now, Mr Moffit is too competent a referee to take such a drastic step without good and sufficient cause. One report stated that L.

Knight was ordered off the field for disputing the referee’s decisions. It Is always wiser for play ere to keep all the breath they have for shoving, running, collaring, and kicking. All the appealing in the world won’t affect a referee's decisions whether he be competent or otherwise, and if he is a strict disciplinarian, there is always the' possibility of him giving marching orders. The playing field is not the place to argue out interpretations of involved rules.

Kinder, who played full-back for North Otago juniors against South Canterbury at Oamaru on Saturday, is a wonderful kick. He converted one try from the side line, and his field goal against a strong wind was a gem. It will be remembered that it was Kinder's kicking which won the match for Waitaki Boy’s High School against Timaru High in Timaru last year.

“As a New Zealander who though keenly interested in Rugby football does not profess to be an authority on the game, I should be glad to air the following questions,” writes “Old Sport” in the “Dominion”: "(1) Is the wing-forward as played in New Zealand conductive or not toward the attractive open passing game we all like to see? (2) In a case where one team plays a man in this position and the other does not, would the good feeling between the players be affected in any way? (3) Is it a fact that this Dominion is the only country in the world which places a man in this position? (4) Can a man be fairly called a forward who doesn’t at any time get down into the scrum? (5) Do our referees possess the mental and physical qualities required, and are they young enough to be able to follow keenly and properly a fast international game of football?” “FiveEighths” replied as follows:—(1) The wing-forward is primarily a defensive player, whose chief duty it is to smother the opposing half-back. (2) |No team objects to the New Zealand j wing-forward so long as he keeps ! onside. (3) Yes; New Zealand is the only Rugby country which plays seven men in the scrum and a wing-forward. (4) No; the New Zealand wing-forward is really an extra back. (5) Some New Zealand referees are young enough and physically fit enough to keep up with even the fastest play; others are not.

Gillies, captain of the Waitaki first fifteen, is a versatile five-eighth. Against South Canterbury last week he played a heady game, and given better support should have improved the home side's total.

Who was the fastest man on the football field with a New Zealand team? That question is very hard to answer says a northern writer. It is no use pointing to the fact that Jim Parker and Jack Steel were professional sprint champions of New Zealand as well as All Blacks, or the curious converse fact that the Leaguer. George Davidson, was the New r Zealand amateur champion. That doesn’t settle the question by a long chalk. Speed on the ; football field is a vastly different thing ! from speed on the running track, j Take “Wampy” Bell, the vice-captain j of the Maori team which played the British at Wellington the other day. In 1923 when at the peak of his long and brilliant career, Bell was probably the fastest footballer in New Zealand. He was like lightning off the mark, and for 25yds or 30yds his tremendous thigh muscles drove him through an opening like a shot out of a gun. But if you put Bell on the running track against an average lot of club sprinters, he would have run somewhere about last. And very often, the exact opposite applies to sprinters turned footballers. Most of them don’t run as fast with a ball tucked under their wing as they do with a relay baton in their hand. It isn’t that small load of leather and rubber that pulls them up. and it’s not “funk.” Even a professor of psychology would find it hard to analyse that “something" in the human temperament which stops a great sprinter from reproducing his track form on the football field.

The South Canterbury juniors were defeated but by no means disgraced against North Otago on Saturday. A splendid pack of forwards who used their weight well, was fielded, and if only the backs had been up to form, the result might have been different. The original back line selected was unable to travel, so that in the return match the juniors should be able to turn the tables.

I Perhaps the greatest lesson in Rugby | tactics that New Zealand is being forc|ed to learn from the tour | of the British Rugby team is the value ; of good goal-kicking, says the Auck- | land “Sun.” Of the 29 men in the | team, six have demonstrated their ability to score points with their boots, ! and 36 of the 55 tries scored have been ! converted. Forwards who can kick | head the scoring register. All the Bri- | tish backs do their best, after crossing an opposing side’s goal-line, to get as far round behind the posts as possible. That has much to do with the large number of conversions, although the flags have frequently been raised from out on the side-line. Black leads with 13 conversions, but he is closely followed by Prentice with 10 and Parker with nine. Martindale has converted one try and Ivor Jones three. Of the penalties, six have been kicked by Prentice, who also has one try to his credit, and two each by Parker. Black and Jennings. Ivor Jones has put over the only field goal, although it was thought that the dropped goal would be a handy weapon for the Englishmen. In all. 20 tries have been scored against the tourists and nine have been converted. There have also been 12 penalties and two field goals. In | the South Canterbury match there was | also a goal kicked from a mark. Nepia, who has played in four games against Britain, has been the highest scorer with nine points. Nicholls, who played in two games, has scored seven points, all in the second Test, and Hart, who has also played in three games, has scored six points. As with Lindsay in South Africa and Stuart in Auckland senior Rugby two seasons ago. kicking has gone far to make up the total of the British team’s most prolific scorer. Prentice leads with 41 points, having converted 10 tries, keiked six penalty goals and scored one try. Black is next with 38 points, his total including 13 conversions. Then come three men, each with 24 points. One is Parker, with nine conversions and two penalties, and the others are Novis and Morley with eight tries each.

I The largest crowd that has witnessed | a football match in New Zealand attended the third Rugby test match at Eden Park, says the “New Zealand Herald.” An official estimate, based on the number of tickets issued, places the attendance at over 40.000, and the takings at about £SOOO. The total gate takings of the tour are now well over £42,000. Although the attendance constitutes a New Zealand record, the takings are not as great as at Lancaster Park. Christchurch, on July 5, when the second test match was played . The gate then returned £6840, a Dominion record, beating the Dunedn record, on the occasion of the first test, by £2499. The record prior to the tour was held by Auckland, a gate of £5300 being realised in 1921 when the Springboks played their second test against New Zealand. The reason for the comparatively small takings in Auckland is the fact that less stand accommodation is available at Eden Park than at other centres.

Commenting on the third test, the “New Zealand Herald" says: In stages the game failed to reach real international standard although at other times brilliant heights were attained and there were several splendid movements carried out by both teams. The All Blacks adopted rather different tactics from those employed in the first two tests, and the backs were not afraid to make the play open instead of playing for safety. Had it not been for the initiative and defence of some of the All Black rearguard. New Zealand would have lost the day in spite of the fact that the forwards played a great game in the loose. There were some great tussles in the tight and some of the British team’s heavier forwards frequently broke away. This made it very evident that the All Black forward line needed more weight.

The desire of the New Zealand j Rugby Union to have a voice in the control of the game by the international Rugby Board was referred to oy Mr S. S. Dean, chairman of the management committee of the union, and Mr James Baxter, manager of the British team, at the dinner given to both the New Zealand and British teams at the Hotel Cargen last Saturday evening. Mr Baxter passed some criticism on the amended rules played in Auckland. "Considering that there are men living to-day who took part in practically the first games played in this country, it can be realised that New Zealand Rugby, although lusty, is still young,” Mr Dean said. "However, in the actual playing of the game we have made considerable progress. Rugby is essentially a British game and we hope that the control of Rugby will always be centred where it is at present—in the International Board. “We in New Zealand do not wish to dictate to those who control the game, but we feel that we have developed sufficiently to be allowed a voice in framing laws and rulings. It is not our desire to agitate, but our aim is certainly direct representation on the International Board.” "With reference to New Zealand’s Rugby aspirations, voiced by Mr Dean. I think I can safely say that the time is not far distant when the Dominion will have a voice in the control of Rugby in the British Empire.” Mr Baxter said. “I make this statement as one who has had some little weight in the affairs of the English Rugby Union, but I would add that there is strong need of uniformity with regard to rulings.”