WHY KICK IT?

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20296, 4 May 1934, Page 11

WHY KICK IT?

Possession of the Ball is Priceless. MANY PLAYERS ERR. (Written for the “Star.”) There is an old-as-the-hills axiom of Rugby football. It reads, ‘‘‘Keep possession—while you have the ball your side may not win, but the other side cannot.” Judged by the style of play adopted by teams in all grades, this solid axiom is forgotten by hundreds of present-day players. Vet great efforts are put forth by sides to obtain possession on the lineout and specialists are selected whose chief duty is to endeavour to get possession in the pack. And then we find that when a side has possession a pass is frequently made to a man on the other side, or else the back in possession kicks the ball directly to an opponent. By so doing all the good work first accomplished in getting the ball is undone. This continuous kicking especially by backs, is distinctly bad football. Mow many times in a match are the inside backs seen to make a good opening and gain much ground, and then, when finally blocked but not tackled, kick the ball forward to an opponent; and invariably the ground is regained by the opposition. In any case, possession—that valuable asset—is gone. And yet this style of play is allowed to go on week after week without any attempt to stop it. What are the Coaches Thinking? Surely coaches of teams are alive t.o this serious error committed by players in all grades. A player in possession should only kick: (1) When he is sure he will find the touchline: or (2) when he is certain his side will regain the ball. In all other cases when he kicks he is playing for his opponents and not his side. Kicking by backs to opponents has become much more in evidence during the last few j'ears, because a few expert players, usually the inside backs, adopted the stab kick to fool opponents. When done right, the stab kick is of great value. It changes the mode of attack, disconcerts the opponents and frequently leads .to a score. But the only justification for such action is subsequent possession. If this is not obtained, then the kick is abortive. While experts may at times attack successfully in this manner it is not often that the lower grade players are sufficiently competent to adopt these tactics. I saw the Auckland v. Wellington representative game at Auckland last season and the ex-Canterbury player, K. Lilburne, was playing first five-eighth behind Kilby, the Wellington half-back. His work in this game was of a very high grade, and judiciously mixed. He side-stepped the opposition and then passed out to Killeen, who followed him. At other times he passed at once, or stab-kicked so accurately that either he or another member of his side got the ball before the opposition; and altogether he kept his opponents guessing all the time what he might do next. No one could take any exception to Lilburne’s kicking—it was the right thing to do—but to see incompetent players giving away possession of the ball makes one wonder if they realise what they are doing. Players should realise that the fundamental principles of Rugby football cannot be broken with any hope of success. W.G.G.