Marks in Rugby are often Unfair says this Critic.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17835, 1 May 1926, Page 11

Marks in Rugby are often Unfair says this Critic.

“ Signing himself “ Progress.” a cor- i respondent writes to the Editor of the “ Star ” as follows : Sir.—Being a Rugby football enthusiast, I would like to suggest through your columns an improvement to the rules. I would like to ask, Why is a mark allowed over the 25yds line? A play-er is not allowed (in New Zealand) to kick into touch on the fly over the 25yds line, so why a mark over the* 25yds line? I am sure your football writer wili agree with me when I say that marks would be better done away with, except where I have already mentioned. What is a mark? Virtually a free kick (the difference is not worth bothering about). If a player catches a ball and calls out mark he is allowed a free kick, for what? The other side have committed no breach. The thing is absurd, because if he cannot catch a ball he is playing in the wrong game of play'ing with his hands—Rugby —and should be playing with his feet— Soccer. I will take it another way, a team on attack receive a ball from a player on defence. He calls out mark, and is allowed a shot at goal and puts the ball over the bar, for which his side are awarded 3 points. The defenders are penalised 3 points while they have not committed a breach of any sort (most unfair and unjust). The oppor-

tunity of being allowed to kick and the score of 3 points count the same as a penalty and. a try. Why? Just watch the marks and try to imagine where the play would have gone if the absurd rule were done away with and you will come to the same conclusion as myself, that the rule is unnecessary. The players get enough free kicks and punts without this extra one. “ You might hear some people say, ‘ What is fair for one side is fair for another.’ True, in a sense—but one must not forget that the kick into touch rule outside the 25 applied formerly, but everyone will now admit the present rule is the best, so do likewise and cut out the marks over the 25yds line, and it will still be fair to both sides and not unjust to either, and also fair to the public. The Canterbury Rugby Union should make a move and see what can be done through the proper channels. The New Zealand Rugby Union favours the alteration as Mr Wil- ' son took Home a remit to the Imperial conference to this effect. It is only through continual agitation on the part of the Rugby unions that progress will be made. In Saturday week’s late “ Star ” a number of critics' opinions appeared ori football topics, it would be interesting if ©pinions on the rule of marks were obtained.