THE VARYING LAWS OF RUGBY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18009, 20 November 1926, Page 23

THE VARYING LAWS OF RUGBY.

NEED FOR A UNIVERSAL CODE.

In referring to the threatened trouble between the Maori team and the Welsh Union over the insistence of the latter body that in matches in Wales the tourists should play under the experimental rules at present being tried out, that well-known football writer “Touch Judge,” takes the op-

portunity to again advocate the formation of an Internat onal Board. In London “Sporting Life,” he writes as follows: The whole incident has strengthened the argument I have been using for years, that there should be a universal code of laws throughout the Rugby Union world. I have ploughed a lonely furrow in this matter for many seasons past, in fact “The Sporting Life and Sportsman” has been ridiculed for suggesting such heresy that the Unions of New Zealand, New South Wales and South Africa have now an equal right with the Home unions to participate in the legislation of the game. We have been informed in all seriousness that, with an International Board in existence, the Dominions were assured of consideration in all matters. So they would be, and would have been, had the International Board been an assembly where representation was equal. But to describe it as being of any value to the Dominions with it present constitution is so utterly absurd as not to require refutation. In the present circumstances of playing Rugby football, when there are •almost regularly international engagements between the Home unions. France, and the three great Dominions, the time is overdue for an International Board to be formed with two representatives from the eight unions, and not, as is now undoubtedly the case, for one to hold the balance of power. The Dominions themselves hardly

know where they are in the matter of Rugby Union legislation. At a recent special meeting of the South African Rugby Football Board, Colonel Morris, tjie Transvaal delegate, submitted a proposal that “the English Rugby Union or other proper and competent authority” should grant them a special dispensation. This alone is sufficient proof that a union which has proved its superiority over us on the playing fields is not only not properly represented in Rugby legislation—or they would immediately have known t«» whom to apply—but are actually unaware as to what authority they can appeal in a matter of vital importance to themselves. It is useless to attempt to evade facts. In the old days, when the playing of the game was restricted to a small area—small indeed in comparison with what exists to-day—the Rugby Union rendered valuable service. It kept the game pure, it obliterated anything at all at variance with recognised amateur principles, and for this wc owe it much gratitude But then the time arrived when the virile manhood of the Empire adopted the game and cherished it as an asset to the community, and it was not long ere they threw out a challenge to the Mother Country to decide the ques tion of supremacy. They came here with new ideas, with new formations, but always playing in strict accordance with the laws of the Rugby Union, and they proved to us in no small measure that they were fitted to stand on an

had given them the game One would imagine, from what one ' occasionally hears, that the Unions of New Zealand. Australia, and South Africa have an ulterior motive in seeking fair representation We hear that from people who take the pecuiiar view that the "heart” of Rugby football is only sound when played by a section of the athletic community who come from a restricted area. It is as insulting a suggestion as it : is utterly untrue. The game of Rugby Union football is as safe in the hands of the Dominions as if it were solely governed by, say, the many Old Boy* • organisations in this country. | Surely we are broad minded enough at last to recognise the just claims of • others. If we do not. and very soon, we shall be adventuring on dangerous methods New Zealand and South Africa are meeting one another in 1925. There is little doubt advantage will l»e taken of the opportunity to discuss in all seriousness the position of two such powerful Unions with the Rugby Union and the International Board over here. I know from correspondence I hav# received both from New Zealand, and i from South Africa, and from conversations I have had with others who I have visited us. that the leaders of the j game in the two Dominions un beginning to realise their undignified posI ition. It cannot be continued for long.