HIS NICHE IN RUGBY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 832, 30 July 1910, Page 12

HIS NICHE IN RUGBY.

THE "WINGER" AS HE MIGHT BE. By D, M'Kenzie. [The following interesting paper was read by Mr. Dan M'Konzie at the last meeting of ihe Wellington Referees' Association. It,is a vigorous defence of the position 'of wing forward as originally devised by the late T. R. Ellison, but admits a certain falling from gvaeu on tho part of the modern winger.'']* Of late years,there, has been a remarkable agitation against the wing forwardremarkable because the agitation is directed against a player who is an integral part of the Rugby game as it is played in New Zealand. . It is strange, also, that much of this agitation has the approval of .the majority of relerees, strange because if the referees had done their duty, tho player occupying that position would not have so far fallen from tho idea of the originator of the wing-for-ward, if his tendencies to * unfair play had been checked ns -. they -should have been in the earlier stages of his degeneracy. The lato T. R. Ellison was responsible in the first place for the wingforward being an essential- ■'■ part of the Rugby game. According to this authority, the duties of wing-forwards are apart from the ordinary work of the loose forwards :— (1) To put the ball into the scrummage. (2) To recede with the ball when secured by his pack. (3) To protect his half-back from tno off-side or unfair- interference of adi vancing opponents. (4) To advance, when tho opposing pack secures possession, keeping onside and close to the edge of the scrummage, and to compel the .opposing half-back to pass, and to prevent him from running round tho scrum. The Ideal Winger.

■ The wing forward ■ should be a nig; fast, active, am) strong man.' He should be a good- dribbler,, good passer, and good tackier, and, above all, he should know how to shield his half-back, without being off-side, from the opposing backs and wings. At the scrummage, his duty is to put the ball in, and for this duty a man has to be specially apt. For instance, some fronkrankers hook better when the ball is rolled in, n'liile others prefer it thrown in, hooking it as it bounces from the ground. A wiug- ■ forward should, therefore, know tho special qualifications of his front-rankers, and be prepared to alter his style of putting' the ball into tho scrummage, according to the side from which he is called upon to do this duty. Another of the wing- . forward's special duties is to throw tho ball in from touch. He should practise throwing-iu.in. all weathers, and at his club's gymnasium, with tho object of perfecting himself into throwing-in without imparting too much spin on the ball. In advancing, receding, or shielding his half-back, a wing-forward should not use his hands or elbows. The finer points of wing-forward play consist in solid shic.ding, without being off-side, and without laying hands on, or digging elbows into, opponents, and in making gaps for the half-back between him- and the scrummage. The Modern Degenerate. What I have written above is mainly based on the late Mr. T. ' R. Ellison's published opinions, and I have amplified them with statements which arc tho result of my own observations over a considerable number of years. But I am fain to admit that in nine cases out of leu, tho main idea of the . pro-scnt-day wing-forward is to obstruct his opponent, using his hands if necessary to keep said opponent from getting on to his half-back. Again, tho wing forward is not particular whether ho is off-side or not when charging round tho scrummage, as long as he is not penalised by the referee. But even allowing this, it cannot be denied that, this does not detract from the value of the wing forward iu the Rugby game—it only serves In point out that tho present-day player has fallen from tho standard set by the originator of the position. Does he Cramp the Play? Some of the abuses hurled at the wlni, forward arc as follow:—1. "Ho spoils the game by nipping in the bud many a promising passing rush." To my mind all the more credit to him if he can do « without infringing the rules of fair ploy. The wholo object of tho game of Rugby football is for one side, individually and collectively, to boat tho other side, and if tho wing forward can get the better of the opposing half-back two out of three times, he is helping his sido to the victory they are all striving for. There is nothing finer, I will admit, than a good passing rush among the backs of any side, but no anathemas are hurled at

the head of, say, a five-eighth who intercepts a pass and turns the tide of battle the other way. Oh, no! He has played the game, although he has upset what promised to bo a spectacular treat. If the five-eighth can do the?o things', why not tho wing forward? Why Ellison Invented Him. Just let me quote here, from the late 'I'. R. Ellison's book why tho wing forward was introduced:— "Tho wing game was devised by mo as tho result of personal experiencn behind -the scrummage as half-back for the I'oueko Club, where I found it impossible for tho smartest of referees to detect and amply penalise off-sido interferences of opponents, bent on spoiling my passes because he cotild not have his eyes on both sides of tho scrummage at once; and where I also foiim' that tho then present state of affairs meant the frustration of about three out of five attempts at passing out, and those three attempts almost invariably tho best scoring opportunities." From this extract it will be seen that the wing forward is now charged with the same offences as ho was introduced to prevent. 2. "Ho is an obstructionist pure, and simple." I am willing to admit that the wing forward is as interpreted by the majority of present-day players, but that is not the fault of the system. I say he has developed so because of tho laxity of referees in the past in permitting l him to indulge in wrestling Ixiuts on the side of the scrummage. A wing forward should never be in front of the ball while it is in tho scrummage—receding with it when his own side gets possession, and advancing with it when it is going through the other pack. If referees made this a hard-and-fast rule, we would very soon hear little or no outcry against tho wing forward. ' 3. "He is an off-side player." And so is every other player, barring perhaps the full-back on either side, seme time or other during the game. But becauso a man plays off-side that is no reason why he should be pushed out of the game. If it were—and the referee had power to order every mail off the field adjudged guilty of off-side play—the spectacle of the two full-backs opposing one another would be seen before the game was half through. Supposing He Were Abolished— Where would the fifteenth man be played if the wing-iorward is abolished? Not a solitary objector can satisiaetonly answer this question, if in £\ew Zealand we persist in playing only seven men iu the scrummage, for the simple reason that a place cannot bo lound lor him on the field. And there is no chance of our system of packing the scrummage being altered during the present generation, for it has proved to make for success. To quote from "The Complete Rugby Footballer" :— Tho wing-forward is an absolute necessity to the New Zealand system of packing the scrummage; without him our scrum formation, with all its admitted advantages, would be largely wasted. He is the' natural result of the formation of seven in the scrummage. And who would put the ball in the scrummage and throw it in from touch? The half-back can't do it, and do anything like justice to his side. He should be in position at the line-out to take advantage of the knock-ons of his opponents and should bo in position to take tho ball when it is heeled out. Experience has shown that the man putting the ball in, provided it goes in fairly and is hooked cleanly, has not a hope of getting the ball as it comes out and opening up the play as it should me. E. Gwyn Nicholls, the great Welsh international captain, says in his book:

The 2-3-2 formation, as played by the New Zealanders, certainly tended to such quick heeling operations as would render it practically impossible for the scrum-working half to put tho ball in, and get back to his place at the base of the scrum in time- to receive it when heeled, One Logical Suggestion. A suggestion has been made that there should be three half-backs and one fiveeighth—one half-back to work the scrummage, and the other two to take the place of the wing-forwards in putting the ball into the scrummage and throwing it in from touch. In the former case, after the ball has been put in, the halfback to drop back behind the scrummage half and get into position to make the connecting link between the half and five-eighth. This system, to my mmd, is the only logical ono, but, after he has put the ball in and finds that tho other side has secured possession, is he at all likely to drop back behind his own scrummago when he seed the ball going to the other half-back? Not in the world, and thus he would prove to be still the wing-forward, but under another name. Conclusion: He is Necessary. I am perfectly, satisfied that the wingforward is a necessity in the Rugby game as played in New Zealand, and if he plays the game fairly and honestly he will over remain so. And it is the duty of tho referee to see that he does do so, and if he cannot be made so to do, a place should be found for him among the spectators. Jn my opinion he makes for brighter football, for the simple reason; that nine times out of ten he lorces the half-back to make his pass quick and lively and thus set the men behind liiiii going at once, whereas if there was no wing-forward the half-back might be tempted to make much play on his own, and by thus losing his supports be brought down before a passingrush could bo developed.

If the wing-forward was abolished, in a very short space of time the two back-rankers would become wingforwards directly the opposing side had secured possession ot the ball, and the half-back would thus find himself hampered with two men coming at him instead of one, under tho present conditions. .

Legislate if you like to curtail.his opportunities, but rely upon it as long as tho Rugby game is played in New Zealand so long will there be a wing-for-ward, although perhaps in time to come he will bo known by another- name, livery player "breaks the law as often as the opportunity comes his way, trusting to luck that the referee will look with a kindly eye on his laches, and the wing-forward is only one with his brethren. Therefore, all the arguments against tho wing-forward are only moonshine when compared with tho other players in the team, and it is by the standard of his fellows that he s'hould be judged. .And this is where I will leave him for the present, contenting myself with tho statement that ho has filled his nicho in the Rugby game since his inauguration with credit to himself and the game wo seek to benefit by our meetingsl together.