RUGBY FOOTBALL RULES

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 2, Issue 167, 31 May 1940, Page 8

RUGBY FOOTBALL RULES

A REFEREE TALKS Ruling the Scrum. Referees who weakly order a seiconcl scrummage if the rules are not; observed in the first, were censured by Mr Bradley in his review of the scrummage rules. He clarified*: the rules by dividing them into two sections: those concerned with getting the ball into the scrum, and' those concerned with the hooking: of At. To get the ball in, he said: ij Stand not less than three feet from the scrummage. Propel the ball by both hands from below the knee at a mod-t----erate speed. Propel the ball so that it does not touch the ground until it lias passed one foot of a player in. each team. Propel it straight and midway between the opposing players. To hook the ball, the hooker must: Keep his feet on the ground until the ball lias touched the ground in the scrummage according tothe rules governing putting it. in. When the ball has touched any foot may be lifted to hook it The rule also provides that the ball is not fairly in if it comes out again at either side between thelines of feet of the front row, or between the feet of the first player on the side on which it is put in. That last is a point which spectators should note very carefully. It allows the half-back and the hookers quite a lot of latitude—too much in the opinion of many followers of' the game. But since it does allowthat latitude, spectators should b& careful to know that they really have seen an infringement before they boo the referee for allowing play to continue. Often, under this rule, the ball can go into the scrum and seem to shoot straight back out again, although in reality, it lias: gone in according to specifications and been hooked back by, saj', themiddle hooker, behind both feet of the first man on the side on whichL it was put in. Revision Necessary. The rule seems to be faulty. In the quick action of scrummaging: these days, it is often difficult for even the referee to see just what has. happened to the ball. With the scrum wheeling and often in thelast stages of collapse, he has to count feet on both sides, watch' a half back who is usually doing his best to make it difficult for anyone* to pick what he is doing, and keep an eye open to the rear for inside backs who are bound to be creeping up as close to off-side as theycan get without being seen. With all the feet moving and bodies crumpling it is a lucky referee who can be sure ten times out of ten be--tween which feet the ball has been hooked. However, the rule is there for observance. What can't be mendecV must be tolerated. Encouraging Risks. Mr Bradley's argument Avas with the referee who sees an infringement of the rules of the scrummage and orders another scrummage in the hope that this Avill put things: right. He said most emphatically that no referee should show his weakness in this fashion-. This was not only wrong according to rule,, it encouraged players to take more and more risks. He appealed to referees to be consistent and inflict the penalty where deserved. A scrum may be put down again if some infringements occur "accidentally," most will agree that Mr Bradley's appeal is timely. There is not nt major ground, or a minor ground in New Zealand, that has not during the last few seasons seen referees hopelessly trying to persuade players to scrum down properly by mak- , ing them go down again and agaifec to break the rule in the same way each time. While it is an excellent thing that authorities such as Mr Bradley should discuss these points publicly,, and excellent, too, that Referees' Associations should invite club officers and players to join in their meetings, it is still obvious that rules which need so much explaining need much more amending. It is not enough to add a rule to cover each question as it arises, just as Parliament adds a law every time it thinks of something on which it' can busy itself legislating. Theprime need is for simplification.