SCRUMMAGING RULES

Chronicle (Levin), 26 April 1946, Page 7

SCRUMMAGING RULES

OVEBCOMING INEFFICIENCY > A new Rugby rule has been drafteo to overcome inetliciency of scrummag ingl Yet when explaining the rule to Wellington referees this week, .Mr. H B. Simmonds admitted that the -possi | bility of several schtms going. down foi I one infnngement liad been increased. j Proviously, if the half-back or liooker jwas at fault when tlie ball ropeatedti j eanie out tlie sidc of the scruin, tlu j referee was empowercd to penalise. Nou Ihe can only ordor thc ball to "be put in I again. • ... I The rule as explained by Mr. Sim ! monds also allows the middle liooker ti irai'se his foot furtherest awa.v from Ihe i bait the momcnt tlie ball has left the [ lialf-back's hand. JBut he must- noi j toucli tlie ball until it lnis hit the ground in the scruni. j As the front-row forwa'rd on the' siil; i at .which the ball is being put in is not perniitted to rai.se his feet until the j iniddle-hooker has touched the ball, the j gap at, the side of the scruni is going to | be left wide open. I A miss-hook, and the ball would coiut shootiug out the open side again. Ii ! Ihe side-hooker could block the aperture I in timo to stop the ball from goipg oui | again — and he is allowed to do so only after tlie middle-hooker has touched the ball — tlien he would be splitting ii frartion of a second. If tlie ball came oui I again, no penalty is to be awarded,-tlic [ ball has lo be put in again. A referee asked klr. Simmonds hoy kiften were they to allow that to happen —All day? • Mr. Simmonds said he supposed so, . i ' We know it was necessary to penal ise a liooker before the ball touched the" ground." said Mr. Simmonds. "Now the oulv illegal lifting_will.be befdrA thc ball leaves the haif-back 's hands. • "Tlie middle man will trv to reach - the ball as early as possible. Tlie resiill frequcntly wiM be that the ball will bckicrked out. , tlie side * 9f . tlie .scrum. Nevertheless, t'ae ball has to be put in again." . • Mr. Simmonds added that, coutfary to popular opinibn, the -South African mode of hooking the ball out between fronf aiid iniddle-row forwards was still permilted. Alr. Simmonds strcssed the way in which thc lialf-back should pu t the ball iu. The half-back niav clioose the side frohi wJAiTi to piit thcball in. 'But once he has taken up liis position lie must put the ball in immediately. Jf not, tie could bo ]>enalised for wastingxtinre. The liaif was not perniitted to stand at oue side and change his niind and dart round to the other. Also he could uoi wait for his straggling forwards to scrum down. The ball had to be put in without delav. "I consider that the new rule is the greatest let out for referees tliat was ever introiluced into tlie hamlbook, ' commciited Mr. Simmonds. " It makes the referee's position a lot clearer l'reviouslv it was left to. their owu dis (.•relion to deciile whether a half was wasting time or not." The queslioii was raised concerning tlie speed the ball was put in. " Mod erate," said Mr. Siininoiids. "As tlu,half is compelled lo tlirovv the bait from below his knees. a throw tliat was too slow would not land iu the required area. If the throw was too fast a pen aJlv could bc awarded. "The ball had to toucli Ihe ground beyond one foot of the nuarest playoi of eacli front row. . "Whether this change is a gonuine or satisfactory attempt to overcome Ihe diflicullies of our scrummaging, rcmaint o be seen," said Mr. Simmonds. " We should give a i'air trial, by expounding its advaiilages rather tlian. lookiug for its deJicieneies. " — Post.