THE RUGBY SCRUMMAGE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 75, Issue 90, 16 April 1932, Page 5

THE RUGBY SCRUMMAGE

THREE MEN IN FRONT ROW NEW ZEALAND UNION’S DECISION. WING FORWARD TO GO. The New Zealand Rugby Union, after protracted, discussion at the annual meeting in Wellington on Thursday, decided to recommend to all affiliated Unions that the three-man front row scrummage be adopted and the wing forward abolished. The matter was introduced by the president, Mr. S. S. Dean, who moved: That with a view to securing uniformity, this conference approves of the management committee’s recommendation that the wing-forward position be abolished, and recommends acceptance to all affiliated unions. It was pointed out by Mr. Dean that any decision reached by the conference could only be in the nature of an agreement which teams would be at liberty to follow or otherwise. New Zealand teams, however, would be selected on the “three front row” basis. When he went on to say that New Zealand teams touring overseas would be bound to honour the agreement by always putting down three men in the front row of the scrum there were immediate protests from several delegates against binding an overseas team to any particu’ar plan of campaign.

In the course of the discussion views were expressed by such well-known campaigners as Messrs. W. J. Wallace, C. G. Porter, and M. F. Nicholls, a blackboard being used freely for demonstration purposes. In seconding the motion put forward by Mr. Dean, Mr. A. C. Kitto, a member of the Management Committee, said that the committee did not wish to start a controversy £,s to which was the best scrum formation. It had been proved to the satisfaction of the committee that, under the new ruling received from the English Rugby Union two men could not gain possession against three, and he considered that the adopting of the committee’s recommendations would result in improved back play. If New Zealand teams were asked to play with only two hookers against overseas teams with three they would be unfairly penalised. “We want to show them that we can still play the game, and win just the same,” he concluded. Wing-forward the Objection. Mr. J. McLeod (Taranaki) said that even if the conference decided in favour of three men in the front of the scrum, many clubs throughout the country would continue to play two, although possibly they would fall into line later on. Many prominent footballers in different parts of the country hold that the new rule gave an advantage to the New Zealand formation, but he did not subscribe to that view. He thought that if New Zealand eliminated the wing-forward, most of the objections to her style of play would disappear. That there was by no means unanimity among the delegates as to the effect of the new rule, was shown when Mr. A. J. Griffiths (Wellington) asked whether the ball had to pass two feet or three before it could be heeled, and the secretary, Mr. A. E. Neilson, was called upon to show diagrammatically that the ball could be heeled when it had passed a man on either side, but could be heeled only by the fourth foot. Mr. Griffiths went on to say that he had always opposed changing from New Zealand's traditional formation, but his views had been altered as the result of the match between Petone and Poneke on Saturday. The scrummage had been good, and the backs had been able to operate without interference from the wing-forward. Both teams played a 3-3-2 formation, and he suggested that delegates should recommend it to their unions. Cliff Porter’s Opinion. In pointing out the merits and demerits of the rival formations as he had found them in the course of his experience, Mr. C. G. Porter (Wellington) held that uniformity was desirable, but one formation should not be adopted to the exclusion of all others until it had been proved to be the best. He was one who contended that the effect of the new rule was to give an advantage to the New Zealand scrum, but if two men were packed against three there was going to be a tremendous amount of friction in the front row. It had been brought in to deal with the obstructive tactics of the middle man in a three-man scrum. Wakefieid, the English captain, had told him that the rule was to make the centre man keep his feet on the ground. Dr. G. Adams (Wanganui) said that the question of importance was whether New Zealand was going to fall into line with the other countries. Rugby football should be a game to be played by fifteen players placed m specified positions so far as the important positions were concerned. In the discussions that had taken place vregarding the success- of the New Zealand formation, too little credit had been given to the players who had built up the Dominion’s record. If

the 2-3-2 formation gave an advantage it was scarcely fair that one team ’ should gain it against another. Mr. Little (East Coast) said that he - had had considerable experience of international and dub Rugby in England 1 and other countries in which three •< men were packed in the front of the i row, and he considered that having • three men in the front row would not : be the end of New Zealand’s troubles, i In New Zealand the scrummaging was cleaner and more effective than overseas, because the scrummage rules : were "better observed and more strictly enforced. (Hear, hear). Dr. Adams was not right when he suggested that it was a mean thing for New Zea- ; land to reap an advantage from its 2-3-2 scrum. Brighter Back Play. Mr. Wallace said the English unions were wealthy, and had not any reason to worry about the public. The speaker traced the history of wingforwards, and claimed that the aboli- |. tion of the wing-forward wouLi make ft>r much brighter back play. The ; best place for the wing-forward would ‘ be in the front row of the scrum. He • maintained that the 3-2-3 scrum was . just as effective as the New Zealand ’ 2-3-2. If New Zealand were to adopt the 3-2-3 formation, it would consid- , erably brighten up back play. Mr. M. F. Nicholls said he was convinced that a three-front formation j would beat the two-in-front every time. .

By the aid of diagrams he showed I what a disadvantage the New Zealand forwards had been, under in South Africa in 1928. Mr. Porter here took a turn at the • blackboard, and demonstrated that ' I only two men could hook the ball, no I matter what formation was used. South Africa, he said, employed a ' 3-4-1 formation, which England had | adopted. Air. E. McKenzie (Wairarapa) con- I sidered that the number of men in th I , scrum should be reduced. The publM would not pay to see seven or eight big men shoving about in scrums. He thought that the rule as laid down should be adopted for this year. Mr. W. F. Hornig favoured a uni- 1 form scrum with three men in the front row. When the New Zealand team was in South Africa in 1928, the South Africans secured the ball from the scrums one hundred times more than did the New Zealanders in the first eleven matches. When the New Zealand team put a third man in the front row they got 50-50 of the ball. Mr. N. McKenzie (Hawke’s Bay; said that nearly every country had a different scrum formation, and the New Zealand union had been »continually altering the scrummage laws. He was of the opinion that three men in the front row would cause more trouble than two. Mr. Weir (Wairarapa) held that the conference should lay down a definite ruling, and not allow unions or clubs to play as they liked. '

Removing Prejudice. Mr. S. P. Wilson (Canterbury) said that there was always a prejudice overseas against the New Zealand foimation. They wanted to get the maximum amount of enjoyment out of the game, and overseas people always gave the idea that New Zealand had beaten them unfairly. Air. R. Masters (Canterbury) thought that New Zealand should fall into line with other countries in order to avoid the adverse criticism which has been levelled by other nations. Mr. Belcher (Auckland) moved, and Air. H. Alanoy (Golden Bay-Motueka) seconded, the following amendment:— That this meeting of delegates mutually agrees without exception that all unions adopt the three in Ehe front row scrummage, and abolish the wing-forward position. On being put to the meeting, the amendment, was lost, and the motion, on being put 1o the vote, was •carried by 50 to 21.