FOOTBALL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17032, 4 May 1923, Page 8

FOOTBALL.

RUGBY RULES. (Special to the “Star.”) WELLINGTON. May 3. The outstanding question of Rugby Rolicy which has caused discussion throughout New Zealand, was settled at the annual meeting of the New Zealand Rugby Union. The majority favour contvnue playing the new rule regarding kicking into touch. " The time has come to put our house in order," declared the president,. Mr A. J. Geddes (Southland) in moving the adoption of the annual report. “We have been tinkering and experimenting in connection with the game for three years, but we are no further ahead than in 1920. We have been fighting a bogey to a certain extent, and letting the game drift.” Mr Geddes ferenc* representative of the Empire, because,’' he said, " we are drifting into t. state of affairs in which it is not a battle of supremacy in Rugby, but a ba.ttle of styles." Delegates should come to a- definite understanding that the incoming committee should endeavour to bring about an international conference to secure l universal interpretation of the laws of the game, and a-lao professional rules, because some of tli-a latter were very antiquated. (Hear, hear.) Mr Frost (Auckland) at a. later stag© moved that the kick-into-touch rule should be operative during the 1923 season. He remarked that, the discussion need not be lengthy, as the matter had been well threshed out. Mr Doig (Southland) seconded the motsjlr Prenderville (Wellington) moved that the rules of Rugby as approved by the English Union be followed, with the provision that the management committee be empowered to grant any union permission to play the amended rule if it desired. The mover declared that delegates had made up their minds; therefore he would not discuss the question. The rule had been played for six months, and everyone knew whether they liked it or not. Mr Prenderville (Wellington) suggested that the management committee should have brought forward a proposal, because it was understood that the matter would have to be reviewed at this annual meeting. The president agreed that this Course would be followed. No doubt, he remarked, delegates had come with their minds made tip as to what rule to follow in their own games, but in view of the proposed English trip in 1924 we should at once revert to the old rule: otherwise it would be found necessary to train the team under the old rules after it had been playing the new rule. Mr Wilson (Canterbury) asked what would happen if Canterbury, when playing Wellington, wanted to utilise the new rule but Wellington would not agree? Mr Little (Nelson) remarked that if there was any argument unions would decide Mr D. M'Kenzie (Wairarapa) said there was room for compromise, though not quite on the lines of the amendment. The great idea in Rugby was to keep the ball in the field of play. Kicking into touch made a farce of the game, and it was noticeable with the All Blaoks that they believed in keeping the ball in play, attack being the best defence. The full-back alone should have a ( free hand in respect to kicking into touch, and to this extent' the amendment ought to be modified. Mr W. Glenn, Rangitikei, urged delegates to show a united front,. He thought that if the new rule were played the 1924 New Zealand team would go to England with a handicap. It would take a year to pick that team and he urged that these ruen should lie given a chance to play the game they would have to meet at Home. Mr Meredyth (Auckland) considered we ought to study our game in New Zealand rather than its eff'eot on England. A more important factor was our near neighbour. New South Wales, which had helped us to build up Rugby at this end of the world. New South Wales played the new rule and liked it and their public liked it. Surely our players selected for England would have sufficient brains to be able to get back in a. fortnight into using the touchline. Mr M'Leod (Taranaki) declared that the intention and spirit of the new rule wa-s right but players were not playing it in the right spirit. If the full back was given the option of using the old rule, as he wa« the defensive player, things would be all right Despite his personal views his hands were tied to favour reversion to the old rule. W. Harris (Otago) said that opiniou in his province was that the new rule had improved Rugby play. He did not know whether following- the new rule was the cause of Otago becoming champion province (laughter). Mr Dlyth (King Country) thought that \ Mr M'Keuzie had hit the nail on the head. 'The new rule wanted amending so far as the full back was concerned, ai£d lie wished to know if this could be done. The chairman: If you get permission from the English Rugby Union. He urged delegates whatever the result of the vote to follow the majority. A straightout vote was desirable for or against the new Mr Little (Nelson) stated that he would move that every union be empowered to play which rule it prefers. He did not think there was any advantage from the new rule. Auckland after playing the new rule for seven years did not come up to Otago, which had not played the new ! rule long enough to be spoiled. From his ' experience of the new rule in Auckland | ne was convinced it would kill the for- ! wards. j Mr J. W. Hardham (Wellington) considI ered they should go back to tbe old rules I for the sake of the game generally. We • should not do without our great line kickers. The new rule was slowing up me game and ruining the forwards, who in an international contest were the backbone of the team. The least which should be done if the new rule was maintained was that any province could play the old rule if it preferred. The chairman said he did not think Mr Little’s amendment was constitutional. Mr S. S. Dean said that the English Rugby Union had granted a dispensation to play the new rule, but he could not see how it could be played or not at the will of any province. The chairman stated that in view of this explanation from the chairman of the Management Committee he must rule Mr Little’s amendment out or order. The rule must be uniform throughout the Dominion. Delegates pointed out that Auckland played the new rule on its own account long before its official adoption. The chairman: We did not know about it. (Laughter). The question was put to a formal division with the result that the motion to play the new rule during the present season was carried by sixty-one votes to thirty-six. Wellington s motion to permit unions to play the old rule in their own district by authority of the New Zealand Union was lost on the voices. •' Give it all a good go ” remarked the i president, “ and you will be able to say | at. the end of twelve months that the ! rule was some good after all.”