RUGBY RULINGS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 75, Issue 177, 29 July 1932, Page 4

RUGBY RULINGS

TOPICAL COMMENT PLAY IN SCRUMMAGES (By “Atkey.”) Old Versus New. ’■ It is refreshing to note that the Lug lish Rugby Union, the supreme body, is talking about revising the scrummage rules and after this season’s go-as-you.-please style it is high time something more definite and more simple was evolved. The present, three-fronted affair has achieved nothing by way oi improvement and with its, “past a player of each side and having to pass three feet of each side of forwards the rule has given more, trouble and made more trouble than it set out to correct. Why This? All because some wily players wore beating the rule was this evolved, but haven’t the players got up -to more tricks under the new ruling than ever they did under the old? Has any Rugby playing country benefited—in a scrummage way—by the new ruling. Has not every country developed a series of tricks, which from our old standard has not improved, serummaging? And hasn’t this new scrumming made things harder for the referee? The Remedy. To my mind the remedy could be found easily enough for either a twbfront or a three-front scrummage. In a two-fronted scrum, to be correct in law, no hooking should be allowed with the inside foot, while in a three-front scrummage only the two men furthest from the ball should be allowed to hook. Both these ideas could be embodied with the present rules and would, if adopted, save much of the heart burning and the “pointing” that goes on now. Scrummage Breaches. In last Saturday’s Test at Sydney, according to the radio account, the All Blacks were penalised at least, half a dozen times over the ball not going into the scrum, either through not being put iu correctly or the front-rankers preventing it from going in. . “Feet up” was the announcer’s verdict, but probably the breaches were caused, more by not letting the ball in or kicking it back before it had got in. In any case the game showed that even All Blacks can make these mistakes, and methinks all New Zealand teams will continue to make them until the rule is amended in some such way as noted in the previous paragraphs. Crowds. That the crowd in Sydney has had no small voice in influencing the open style of play was made manifest during last week’s Test, and as if in vindication of this policy the Aussies rallied magnificently half-way through the second spell and on several occasions overran our chaps and even scored when apparently hopelessly behind. Solomon got well ‘‘tified up” for taking a “mark” when Australia was attacking stronjiy. Pity that local crowds in New Zealand do not insist on this open play in preference to the eternal kicking to touch as soon as a team is in front. Open play, besides being less strenuous (in a way) is productive of better football and more results. Moreover it has the additional merit of always having the other fellow guessing. Carrying Back. Players are still seemingly unmindful of the rule relating to the carrying back of the ball behind their goal line and forcing. This is particularly a fault among the grade teams. Why it should be so is hard to say. Probably some of the referees have not illustrated the rule forcibly enough, although as decisions should be qualified this seems hardly the reason. If players therefore do this deliberately then they must expect the law to “bring them up,” although this pulling them up hasn’t stopped the habit. All carrying, knocking and kicking back behind one’s own goal line must bear the penalty of a scrum at the spot if the ball is made dead—i.e., forced. This Charging Business. This is not quite understood locally and players should see to it that they make themselves more conversant therewith. For instance, during a placokick at goal the defenders must not charge until the ball is actually on the ground. The fact of the kicker making a long run doesn’t come into the question; the ball is the only thing defenders should watch.

In the case of a drop-kick or punt the defenders may charge as soon as the kicker begins his run or offers to kick. If thereupon the kicker is blocked (and provided he still retains possession of the ball) he may retiro and start, the kick over again and the defenders must also retire to the line of the mark. Penalties. Under the above rule breaches by the defenders—that is, charging too soon—are penalised by having the charge disallowed, thus virtually giving the kicking side a “free kick.” On the other Land, should any of the kicker’s side bo in front of the kicker they are penalised by having a scrum given against them at the spot. Also should the kicker wilfully mislead the opponents or waste time his team is penalised by having a serum given against them for the first-mentioned breach, while for waste of time a penalty kick can bo inflicted.

A Good Example. Quite a good illustration of tho advantage rule occurred in a junior game last week when during a line-out a defending player got hold of and dumped an opponent without tho ball. The ball was taken by one of the dumped man’s mates and as he made a quick getaway and nearly scored the referee refrained from imposing a penalty kick for the illegal holding. This was a case of quick-witted judgment and was perfectly in accord with the best application of the advantage rule. It takes some discrimination for a referee to allow such illegal holdings to pass, but the gaining of a decided advantage, plus a warning to tho offender concerned, is a better deterrent than a free kick would be.

A Comparison. It is always unprofitable to make comparisons, but one could hardly fail to notice that the Taihape visitors of last week, hung on to the ball like grim •icafh during Jines-oul, melees and ruck

scrumming. Apparently such things are more condoned up there than here, but players should realise that they must drop the ball immediately their progress is stopped. Last week’s match showed too much of this illegal hanging on. and although it begot several free kicks, Taihape were fortunate in not being penalised more often as their actions brought the game too much into tho stage of “dangerous play”—a feature no good to the game, the public, or the referee Forward Pass. During last week’s rep. match several instances of forward passing went unnoticed, mainly because the referee was not in a position to see properly. Although the crowd can generally spot these at once it isn’t always quite so easy for the referee if he is not in alignment. By the way, the radio announcer of the All Black match last week stated several times that free kicks had been given against “pass forward” intances. If the announcer was correct then the Aussie referees are more strict than we are, and local fans think that we are “hot” enough. Il at ana’s Defection. It is a pity that Ratana has withdrawn from local competition, and it is a greater pity that their defection is attributed to tho alleged incompetency ot one of tho local referees. Surely the ordering 1 off of one playei warf not sufficient excuse for the withdrawal from local football and Rugby patrons will regret Ratana’s decision. Even allowing for the Maori temperament, it would have been more sporting had Ratana made the player concerned "‘face the music” and so settle the unworthy controversy and prove whether the referee was right or wrong. To draw out the way they have was unfair and was not worthy of the’ great sporting traditions of Ratana. Making the referee the scapegoat for their action was decidedly unjust. Law 35: Waste ol Time. This rule has had varied interpretations placed on it from time to time but surely that construction put on it at last Monday’s referees’ meeting “took the biscuit.” The chairman, in conveying congratulations to a member who had just joined the ranks of those worthy folk—the benedicts—severely admonished the recipient and censured him for wasting precious time seeing that he had selected the right lady and she was willing. As Others See Us. Next week’s lecture is to be a talk on 1 ‘Refereeing’’ by Mr. H. J. Stonb, who is said to be leaving no stone unturned in his endeavour to “rake members over the coals” in order to make them more proficient in their work. This ought to be “some gas,” especially as it will be f.o.b. whereas that produced by W.J.S. for the Council has to be paid for very dearly. The Sadness of Farewell. After years of disinterested enthusiasm the genial Henry Cooper is relinquishing his official secretarial post with the Rugby Union and local referees will regret this, as Henry’s everready assistance and his open diplomacy has done much to keep the Association in sympathetic touch with the Union’s affairs. His retirement will rob the referees of a good friend and counsel-