ALTERING THE RULES OF THE RUGBY GAME.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17853, 22 May 1926, Page 9

ALTERING THE RULES OF THE RUGBY GAME.

DOUBT EXISTS REGARDING THE OFF-SIDE PENALTY: LATEST ADDITIONS WILL NOT SPEED UP THE PLAY.

The latest alterations lo the rules of Rugby football came into operation to-day. . For the past week or so referees hare been studying them closely and scratching their heads in an endeavour to arrive at the correct interpretation of the amendments. The wording of the rule relating to the penalty for off-side makes its meaning obscure, and judging by a reply which the writer received from Wellington, the same doubt exists at headquarters in connection with this rule.

(BY L. GUIXEY.) Since the rules of the Rugby game were so drastically altered four or five years ago additional sections and sub-sections have crept in till now the rule book is a veritable cross-word puzzle to* the referee, writes Mr Guiney. The latest amendments have come to ' hand and they were discussed at considerable length by the meeting of members of the Rugby Referees' Association last Monday night. The referees were to have interpreted them this afternoon. Perhaps it would be nearer the mark to to say that they were going to attempt to interpret them. The non-under-standing public always make it their business to “ sort out ” the referee whenever they cannot understand a decision. What they will do till they become acquainted with the latest interpretations goodness only knows. I have perused the latest amendments closely and have come to the conclusion that they will not only make the already hard task of the referee very much more difficult, but they will have the effect of slowing the game up in some respects. This particularly relates to the deletion of the advantage rule from the law relating to throwing the ball in from touch. THE SCRUMMAGE RULE. The new scrummage rules state that i the referee shall allow the non-offend-ing side to put the ball in and if in doubt he gives it to the defending side. The rule used to give the referee power to put the ball into the scrum, and this was almost universally done whenever a scrum was formed five yards or less from the goal-lines. Now, there is no provision for this. It is of the utmost importance that the ball should be put in accurately on such occasions, because a wing-forward might be inclined to risk a free kick rather than a try which would bring five points to the opposing side. Such a thing would be most likely to happen if the defending side were more than three points ahead and it was getting near time.

The former rule relating to the ball being in the scrummage stated that a player was to be penalised if he lifted a foot from the ground before the ball had been put in. The new rule provides a penalty if before the ball is fairly in the scrummage he moves either of his feet beyond the front line of his forwards. In the first place the ball is not fairly in the scrummage until it has passed a player on either side. The question arises under the new rule, what is to be taken as the front line of his forwards? Obviously it must mean their legs, and not their heads or shoulders. Therefore it means that the front row must not advance the foot they intend hooking with in front of their supporting leg. The new rule does not say that a foot cannot be lifted up in a scrum, so long as it is not advanced in front of the stationary one. Now what sort of a task is this going to make for the poor referee? Perhaps it will mean that he will have to call the front rankers before him and say, "Which is your supporting leg—and yours—and yours —and yours? Let me see, now. one’s right, two’s left, three's right, and four’s left.” They form down. Yes, that’s all right, the referee's got it. But when he gets out on the field and stands on the opposite side of the scrum he immediately starts racking his brain to remember which are the left-footers and which are the right. And what about the man who hooks with either foot? It means that he will have to watch four supporting legs and four swingers. To do this he will have to stand close up to the scrum, which is not a good practice by any means, as he is sure to miss a lot of off-side play round the opposite side of the scrum. To say nothing of the march the wingforwards or first five-eighths are going to steal on him behind his back while he is so intently watching the front rankers at close range. The further away from a scrum the referee is the more he is likely to see; that is, speaking generally. It appears to me that this scrummage rule is intended for a three-two-three formation, where very frequently the middle man acts as the swinger. An addition has been made that it is illegal for more than three players on each side to form the front row of their forwards before the ball has been put into the scrum. This confirms the opinion that the new law relating to the scrummage has been framed to meet English conditions. OFF-SIDE PENALTIES.

It is the proposed alteration in the penalty for off-side that is giving everybody most food for thought. Under the old rule, whenever an off-side breach was committed, the opposing side had the right of either of two things—a free kick where the breach occurred or a scrum back where the ball was last played. Now the nonoffenders are to be given a wider choice, and this is where the obscurity comes in. It is not at all clear whether the non-offending side may now have a free kick or a scrum where the breach was ccmmitteed, or a free kick or a scrum where the ball was last played. In order to endeavour to find a solution of the problem l communicated with Mr Dan M’Kenzie, of Wellington, president of the New Zealand Referees’ Association, and the reply 1 received was as follows: —

"No alteration in old interpretation at present.”

From this reply it may be taken for granted that the same fog is obscuring Wellington. However, it looks as though the intention is to make the penalty for offside play more severe as this practice is contrary to the’ spirit of the game. Such being the case the probability is that the rule is intended to convert the option of a scrum back into one of a free kick at the same spot. A scrum at the place of infringement would not be increasing the penalty at all. j n f art no captain would ask for it unless per haps under certain circumstances such as having no good place kick in hia team, or when his side are attack in K near their opponents' _. oa , ,j„ e and they want hve points more than' three Of course, the awarding of a tree kick away hack where the ball was last played would be a very severe one indeed In cases of flagrant oilaide this penalty would fit the crime but every plaver gets offside occasionally. *nd a strict tiding o n th« whole off Aside business would operate ruthei , hartley.

Under , the old ruling a team had to have a free kick at the place of infringement. or a scrum back, there being no option in regard to a scrum at the place of infringement. It. mav be. therefore, that the new rule is intended to give captains the option of a scrum at such place. In isolated instances, such as I have indicated above, it may suit a side better to have a scrum than a free kick. It must be admitted that there is far too much offside in an ordinary game, and anything that is calculated to eliminate it is surely welcome. If therefore, the penalty for offside play is to be made very much more severe than it was. one may look for a diminution of this practice once the players have become accustomed to the new interpretations. The idea of making the penaltv kick absolutely free is one with which I entirely agree. The permitting of players to jump up in the air in an' attempt to stop the flight of the ball has lent itself to great abuse; in fact in many cases to miniature charges. It used to be permissible for a player standing outside the ten yards limit to rush up and play the ball immediately it touched an opponent in any shape or form. Now the rule debars this except in cases where the opponent makes a genuine attempt to kick or play the ball. Another poser for the referee! If the man taking the ball catches it cleanly, the opposite side may not interfere with him until he has run five yards. This provision, of course, does not apply to the player who last kicked the ball, as he can run up and tackle the man in possession at any time whether he has run five yards or has not moved.

SEVERE PENALTY FOR OBSTRUCTION.

A very drastic alteration has been made in connection with the obstruction rule. There is always a tendency on the part of players to risk a penalty in order to gain or save a try by unfair play. Such practices are so entirely in opposition to the spirit of the game that the new rule has been brought in obviously for the purpose of endeavouring to eliminate these practices. The amendment provides that a man who is not running for the ball and who wilfully charges or obstructs an opponent who has just kicked the ball shall be penalised as follows:—The opposite side shall be awarded a free kick at the place of infringement or where the ball alights. Naturallv enough the kick will be taken where the ball alights. Provision is made when the ball alights in touch or over the goal line. In such cases the kick shall be taken at a spot ten yards infield lrom where the ball went into touch or from where it landed over the goal line.

The penalty is such a severe one that it undoubtedly lends itself to grave abuse. It opens the door to the man who, having kicked the ball, deliberately runs into an opponent in order that his side may get a free kick away up where the ball lands. I fully agree that there has been too much walking or running across in front of a man who has last played the ball, and this is the chap the rule is out after. In enforcing the penalty, however, referees will have to watch very closely the man who has last played the ball and the opponent who is in the most likely position to act as an obstructor. The remedy against the man who, having kicked the ball, runs against an opponent in the hope of gaining a free kick where the ball lands, is to enforce the penalty kick against him at the spot where he runs into his opponent. This is an additional rule which is going to give referees food for thought, and it will make their task of watching for obstruction at one place, and off-side in the direction the ball has gone, a hard one, though under the old rule the same vigilance should have been observed. With the penalty now much more drastic, however, it is just possible more abuses may creep in from the point of view of both sides. SLOWING UP THE GAME. An additional rule that is going to have the effect of materially slowing up the game is that which refers to throwing the ball in from touch. Under the old rules the player who did not throw it in five vafds had a free kick given against him. Now the rule reads that a penalty kick should not be awarded unless the ball is persistentlv thrown in less than that distance. What about the man who prevents the ball from being thrown in five yards? Does he not come in the same category as the thrower in from touch? Both are wasting time, and in my opinion the only way to check the little games of these players is by giving a free kick. Just what is known by “persistently” is apparently left to the discretion of the referee. It may mean twice or it may mean half a dozen times.

Was not the use of the three balls introduced with the idea of speeding up play once the ball had gone into touch? Now jt is proposed to allow the players to "fool about” on the side lines for at least, a few seconds, which on a football field, frequently mean minutes to a side a point or two in the rear. In cases where there is only a point or two separating the two teams it is of vital interest to the side in arrears that not a second more than is necessary should be wasted. This is where I think the new rule is going to fail. The referee should Vie able, to sav immediately whether time is being wasted, pc.rsistentlv or. other

But the most retrograde step of the lot, in my opinion, is the deletion of the advantage, rule on the line-out. It simply means that there are going to be a succession of scrums following line-outs, especially on a windy day. ft also means that a half-back, or anv Other plaver, will not be able to take a mark on a lineout unless the ball has been thrown absolutely straight. Here again the wily thrower m from touch has an. opportunity of wasting time He will be shrewd enough not to throw the ball m crooked all the time, but when he considers the sec onds are most valuable to his side he will have the inducement, of doing so. Line outs and scrums in themselves are a great enough Hindrance to a fast game, let alone when one immediately follows the other. The reinstatement of the advantage rule as it app‘\ es to the line-out. is a matter which should be taken up by the (anterburv K”Rbv Referees’ As hociatmn as ,ts deletion means so inuc h *n the way of slowing up the

game After all, the game of Rugby con si its entirely in what advantages one .side can gain over the other, so "'hy not apply the advantage rule to all laws of the game? It would have puts sajn.l am SuiAjficlmis jo am of doing away with all the sub-sections which are now in existence by the dozen. What is of more importance you l»e able, to hand to a man starting out on a career as a referee a book of rules which he could study and learn in one night. I defy’ any beginner at the present time to digest and get the hang of all the pages of rules now in existence in a week's solid concentration To learn to interpret them might take him a season or two. or lie max never he able to jfvit them properly into practice.