Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE NEW ZEALANDERS CRITICISED.

After the first match against New South Wales, in which the New Zealand ' professional team was beaten, the “ Referee” wrote of them as follows: —Measured by the standard of New South Wales representative play in the Rugby Union game of the present day, the Light Blue professional team .is far from being a great side, though in parts it is first-class. Yet, despite the New Zealanders scoring first with a dropped goal, the local team never ooked like losing the match. They were faster all round and better conditioned, and a good deal superior in the three-quarter line.

The New Zealand forwards in this match were physically immense, being tall, muscular, and heavy. They dribbled neatly, and tackled very soundly and very hard. But we have become accustomed to . seeing New Zealand forwards as fast as the nippiest of backs, and as clean and clever in short-passing movements, as Wallace, Hunter and Co. And therein these forwards badly fai ed by comparison. Their play was strenuous and intensely solid, but, with the exception of perhaps W. Johnston, it was the solidity of the cart-horse rathei’ than of the sound thoroughbred. And when they realised that the opposition p ayers were faster, tacklers of might and certainty, and not in any degree depressed by the old-time fear of the New Zealander, the clevernesses in Rugby football frequently became supplanted by rough bullocking, at times degenerating into foul play.

It has been said that the referee is entirely to blame, and the players blameless for this. The referee, of course, failed in an important part of his duty, but that cannot excuse the players. If professional football is not promptly stripped of this sort of thing, it will very quickly kill the game. If a referee makes a mistake, the players are to respect him and his decisions. It is a sorry spectacle when a half-back angrily kicks a stationary ball far away out of the field of play because the referee has seen fit to penalise him, and, moreover, to do so quite correctly. It is even worse for a p ayer similarly disappointed to throw the ball hard at the referee. Actions of this kind, if repeated, must bring the game into disrepute. The roughness in its closing stages has, I fancy, not done the New Zealand team any good in public opinion.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/periodicals/NZISDR19080514.2.32

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVI, Issue 949, 14 May 1908, Page 13

Word Count
397

THE NEW ZEALANDERS CRITICISED. New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVI, Issue 949, 14 May 1908, Page 13

THE NEW ZEALANDERS CRITICISED. New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVI, Issue 949, 14 May 1908, Page 13