REFEREEING IN ENGLAND

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 11, Issue 28, 14 May 1947, Page 6

REFEREEING IN ENGLAND

CUSTOMS DIFFER IN N.Z. , SIGNAL SYSTEM NOT USED Considerable entertainment as well as information of interest was derived by Wellington Rugby referees from a talk by Mr W. J. Me-. Carthy upon British referees as he observed them in the course of his tour with the Kiwi team as radio commentator. Mr McCarthy’s talk was supplemented by a display of photographs of' incidents in the Kiwis’ matches provided by Mr C. H. Williams. The English referees, said Mr McCarthy, included some who were excellent (Mr Ivor David, for instance), som,e who were very good (such as Mr C. H. Gadney), and others of varying efficiency. He proceeded to relate incidents of particular interest from the angle of the application'of the laws of the game and the manner in which such incidents were handled by the referees concerned. “Referee’s Dream”

In one match, he said, there occurred “the referee’s dream,” namely, the opportunity for the referee °to change his decision when he had awarded a try and found that the touch judge had his flag upraised. That referee, however, failed to follow the correct procedure of asking the touch judge why he had kept his flag up so that he could ascertain that it was either because the player who returned the'ball did not have both feet in touch, or because the wrong side had returned the ball to the field of play. The only explanation given by the referee for his omission was that he “had discussed that very matter that morning .with the touch judge, who was a personal friend of his, and in whom he had every confidence.” British referees, added Mr McCarthy, did not use the signals customarily employed in New Zealand to indicate scrums, penalty kicks, tries, etc. In the Leinster match this had caused many spectators to think the home team had won by 13 points to 10 when the final score was actually 10-all. The penalty kick awarded against the Kiwis in that instance (many thought a try had been given) was stated by phe referee to be due to Scott, the Kiwi fullback, deliberately throwing the ball into touch-in-goal. Mr McCarthy; suggested that the referees, at their next meeting, might debate whether such a decision was correct. The Lateral Pass Two 'points on which British" referees followed different interpretations "from those followed in New Zealand were mentioned by Mr McCarthy. One was in respect to the forward pass. In Britain a lateral pass was regarded as a breach “because the ball had not been passed back,” something which was not stipulated by the laws. The other was in respect to the spot at which a scrummage takes place. Packs of forwards opposing the Kiwis frequently fbrmed’ up before the latter were ready, and by vigorous shoving, pushed the Kiwis back sometimes as far as 15 yards. The practice was permitted on the ground that it was an inducement for forwards to get quickly into the scrums. When, however, the Kiwis followed suit they were called back to the original spot. Various other expedients were tried by the tourists but the result was always the same.

Mr McCarthy said that only in London, where Mr Gadney was the leading light, did the referees hold meetings for the purpose of discussing the laws and endeavouring to give at consistent interpretations.