TO IMPROVE RUGBY.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20483, 8 December 1934, Page 9

TO IMPROVE RUGBY.

N.Z. Should Press for j Change. SEVEN-MAN SCRUM. |j (By J. WATT.) i GLASGOW, November 2. : The jubilee of what has been de- ■ scribed as the most revolutionary i change in Rugby football in Britain : has passed almost unnoticed here. This change was the introduction of the ; four three-quarter system. In 1884 the Cardiff Club found that it had four three-quarters of equal merit. The officials of the club could not decide which one should be j dropped, and, besides, they were all | first-class players. They solved the j difficulty by playing the lot. Gradually Adopted, This was the origin of the four threequarter system still used in British Rugby. The innovation did not “ catch on ” at first, and, indeed, like all innovations, it met with considerable opposition. There were the usual complaints about interfering and tinkering with the established game. But, in spite of the opposition, the new idea made headway because it proved valuable. Newport adopted it and developed a match-winning team, but it was not until the Welsh fifteen had demonstrated beyond doubt the advantage of playing four three-quar-ters that the value of the change was realised by England, Scotland and Ireland. These countries then abandoned the old formation of nine forwards and six backs for the new Welsh formation of eight forwards and seven backs. The Welsh formation made for faster and more open Rugby. It helped to give the quietus to those prolonged and desperate struggles between the forwards which made Rugby a trial of brute strength rather than j of skill, and a deadly dull affair for the j spectators. The change introduced j by the Cardiff Club marked the beginning of modern Rugby. To-day, British Rugby appears to be at another turning point in its history. The Rugby public are demanding faster and brighter play, but, generally speaking, they are not getting it, partly because set scrimmaging has lapsed into a state of chaos, and partly because the breakaway forwards are seriously handicapping back play. 2-3-2 Scrum is Ideal. In spite of all the rules and rulings, i the problem of getting the ball into the scrum satisfactorily has not been solved. On the contrary, the attempts to solve the problem have ended in confusing referees and players j alike. Then, when the ball has been hooked by one side or the other, the way in which it is held up in the scrum is enough to make a keen half-back grey-headed and wrinkled in the course of a single season. To my mind, these scrum difficulties will never be solved so long as the scrum with three men in the front row is retained. The only solution lies in the adoption of the old New Zealand 2-3-2 scrum. For getting in the ball fairly and satisfactorily, and for quick, clean heeling the 3-2-3 scrum cannot compare with the 2-3-2. After an experience of Scottish Rugby extending over four seasons I am satisfied that the 2-3-2 scrum is the ideal, and I think the New Zealand Rugby Union ought to bring all the influence at its command to bear on the International Board of Control to have this formation adopted. I am sure that if the j British unions could be induced to give the 2-3-2 formation a fair trial it would be adopted here. In fact, according to one well-informed critic, there is already a movement here “ to reduce the forwards from eight to seven, and possibly play an extra back. The adoption of the 2-3-2 scrum would, of course, raise the problem of finding a place for the spare man. It is very unlikely that the British unions would consent to the introduction of the old New Zealand wing forward. There is too much prejudice against him, unreasonable though some of it may be. But there is surely room for an extra back. The three-quarters appear to have too much space in which to operate. If they had less they might run straighter. Or, the spare man might be made a sort of rover back. A good player with a roving commission would give more opportunities for surprise movements, novelty and initiative in back play. However, in order to meet British prejudice the rover would quite definitely have to be a back, for if he were given a free roving commission he would undoubtedly tend to become a j wing-forward more than anything else. The adoption of the 2-3-2 scrum would also help to curb the breakaway forwards. Over here the 3-2-3 scrum is the usual formation, and it is the two outside men of the back row who act as breakaways. The way these forwards pack in the scrum enables them not only to break quickly and at the right time, but also to leave the scrum without interference with its cohesion. In the 2-3-2 scrum the two men in the back row with their heads “ in ” cannot break away quickly, and besides they are not in a position to see what is happening on the other side. As for the outside men in the middle row neither can leave the scrum without destroying its cohesion. Another important point is that the

quicker heeling that is possible with the 2-3-2 scrum would be all in favour of the backs and against the breakaway forwards. Conservatism of British Unions. In spite of its decided advantages it will not be easy to get the unions here to adopt the 2-3-2 scrum. .Their outlook is conservative, and they have a rooted objection to changes, especially to suggested changes from overseas. Possibly, the Welsh Rugby Union, which appears to be the least conservative, would view the proposal most favourably. The English Union is fairly progressive, though by no means radical, but the Scottish and Irish Unions are still influenced by what Gladstone or some other old Victorian said in ISS6. It may, therefore, seem quite useless for the N.Z.R.U. to suggest the adoption of the 2-3-2 scrum. But perhaps the position is not quite so hopeless as all that. Younger men are beginning to get control in the unions, and they are not necessarily going to be content with what their predecessors considered ideal. Even the Scottish Union, a veritable monument to old fogeyism. has lately shown some slight signs of a more progressive spirit. A season or two ago the union consented to the players in the Scottish team being numbered, doubtless a slight concession to the up-to-date, but. perhaps a straw showing in which direction the wind is now blowing. Besides, there is good precedent for the change. If Rugby had not been made faster and more open by the adoption of the four three-quarter system it would not have the following it now enjoys in this country. A similar change—decreasing the number of

j forwards and increasing the number of i backs —is now required to meet the ! altered conditions, and in the interests I of the future of the game it ought to be made.