Why Attack N.Z. Rugby?

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18785, 14 June 1929, Page 14

Why Attack N.Z. Rugby?

LAWS HERE WERE NOT CHANGED IN ORDER TO WIN BIG GAMES.

Probably because numerous articles on the subject have from time to time appeared in these columns, a South Canterbury correspondent has forwarded to the “Star” a marked copy of the “Timaru Post” dated June 11, wherein there is strong criticism of the action of New Zealand in departing from the rules governing International Rugby football. The burden of the article is that by adopting certain alterations in recent years, the Dominion has not played the game. Here is a typical sentence: — “At present the attitude of the Union authorities would indicate that they have no confidence either in the attractiveness of the game, compared with the League game, or in the ability of the youth of New Zealand to meet their opponents on an equal footing. They consider it necessary, in order to WIN to depart from the rules of the game, and adopt tactics which would not be tolerated in any other sport.” This is unfair and illogical. New Zealand did not depart from the rules of the International Board in order to win big matches against other countries. The alterations were first suggested and then endorsed solely with the object of making the game as plaved by New Zealanders in New Zealand attractive to New Zealanders. Take one instance—the new kick-into-touch rule. Who wants to see the Dominion revert back to the old law with its deadening effect on play? Is it not a fact that South Africa views our interpretation with a very much more favourable eye as a result of the “object-lesson” game played against a Springbok Varsity last year?

The writer of these notes would very much like to see the wing-forward done away with. At the same time it is absurd to forget that the wing-forward was introduced here, not for spoiling purposes, but to suit our special scrum formation, the seven men in the shape of a diamond. It is as well to remember, too, that Australia and England, while boasting that they play no wing-forward, do frequently play two—the back rank breakaway forwards. When occasion calls for it, they spoil all day Take another sentence from the “Timaru Post’s” article:— Consider, for instance, if the New Zealand Cricket Council, in order to win against a visiting eleven, claimed for its bowlers the right to throw the ball instead of bowling it, or for the fieldsmen to crowd in on a batsman to hinder him when about to strike. And. further, should the Athletic Council permit cyclists and runners to obstruct their competitors in order to win? Such a departure from the rules of the game—and the spirit of fair play—would not for a moment be tolerated or considered. Why, then, should obstructionist tactics prevail and be applauded in Rugby? The answer to that is the New Zealand Rugby Union has put no rules whatever into force in this country, except certain amendments specifically approved by the International Board itself to suit local conditions. Often the same thing has happened with cricket in Australia, and for exactly the same reason—to sxiit Australian conditions as distinct from conditions at Home. Finally, the southern critic has completely lost sight of the fact that when it comes to International games New Zealand suffers and does not benefit from the adoption of amended rules in this country Our men have to turn round and play under the English Union laws and that fact alone should be suffcient to acquit our Rugby legislators of any “win-at-all-costs” charge. —Onlooker.