SIDELIGHTS OF RUGBY.

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

SIDELIGHTS OF RUGBY.

PATHOGENY OF THE SCRUM. (Br Oj?f-side Mac.) Members of the Californian universities' team are considerably exorcised as to whether seven or eight men is the better scrum formation. Our visitors have been taught during the past two seasoue that an eight-man scrum was preferable to anj* other, and throughout their tour of the Dominion, except for a spell in the mutch against Wellington they have stuck to the system recommended to them. This system was introduced into California some two or time seasons ago by a New South Wales genius, named "Billy" Howe—a player of no special Rugby knowledge. Previous to his advent into tho Land of the Golden Gate, tho Californians had adopted the seven formation, but the Sydney llugby evangelist spun such an extraordinary .story of the wonderful superiority of eight to seven men thai the Americans hastily discarded the New Zealand style, and embraced the cumbersome flat-footed phalanx at present in vogue generally in Australia and Great Britain. It is almost certain, however, that when they return to their homes the Californians will disregard tho Howe fetish, and drop it into oblivion. During tho course of their football experience in New Zealand, the visitors have found that the biggor the scrum the stodgier the play. They have found aha that by attempting to make a feature- of scrum strength tlioy have sacrificed possibilities of very good, open playj both in their back; and to*.

ward divisions. . The fact that their scrum half has had to leave his position to place the ball in the scrum, and has not been able to get back again iu quick enough time to save the leather from the fast following feet of an adventurous winger, has rudely shaken the Americans' faith in tho eight men theory. At present our student friends require tuition in loose play, and this can bo best brought about by adopting a seven men scrum and a winging forward. Later, when they havo mastered the difficulties of loose dashing play, California may experiment to sonic purpose in another direction. Misguided Enthusiasts, Every few years there is an agitation, usually engineered by misguided theoretical enthusiasts with absolutely no practical knowledge of the game for a change in the style of piny. In the circumstances the suggestions should be received with caution. There was ■ once a man who gravely proposed that Rugby should be played -with a "soccer" ball, that there should be no collaring, only touching with the fingers, and this should constitute a tackle, and that punted goals should be allowed. These proposals wtre gravely debated by tho then New Zealand Rugby Union, and some of thorn were only thrown out by the rugged matter-of-fact eloquence of a few practical footballers who happened to be present at the meeting. Hamish Stuart's Idea, Even in late years do we not know that Hamish Stuart, the bitter Knglish critic, contended that as the "All. Blacks" only wore shin-pads outside their stockings in order to kill and eat their enemies, suoh practices were criminal, and should be put down by the penal law? No doubt Hamish Stuart's reflections on this and olhef Mew Zealand subjects were affected by crass stupidity and a hobnailed liver, but he is a very lively example of the individuals who consider that if they were only given' the chance they could run this sphere on wheels. Practical Knowledge. I On the other hand, if suggestions re garding the'alteration in the-game were to come from such well-informed and pre-sent-day practical players as i\ Roberts, Mynott, Francis, or "Ranji" Wilson, such suggestions should bo received with every consideration by the authorities. Apparently the trouble is that too much notice is taken of well-intentioned but, a-fc tho same time, extremely verbose iconoclasts. An illustration of this fact presented itself some months ago, when a committee was discussing suggested alterations to the rules for consideration by the English Rugby Union. In one instance, when it was proposed that a half-back must keep behind a certain imaginary line drawn through the centre or the back of his own scrum, the opinion of a man like, Roberts was overridden through the effect of the oratorical efforts by men who probably have never played first-class football in all their lives. It is not intended in,any way to decry in any measure the opinions of enthusiasts. Enthusiasm is fundamental to success, but something should be said in favour of reasonable argument advanced by practical players. We should not tinker too much with tho rules. A League Snag,

In the Northern game there is tho rule of the imaginary line drawn through'the back of the scrum, beyond which, while the ball, is in the mass, no detached player is supposed to advance. It is the ostrich game over again, and the other day one of the principal member* of the English League team complained bitterly, because the law had broke back and struck him when he was not looking. It' appears that the Australasians had resurrected an old-time dodge of kicking tho leather out of the side of the scrum to tho half-back, who had thrown the ball in. After throwing the ball in, the Australasian half did not immediately retire behind his own scrum, and Mm Englishman correctly argued that by his actions his. opponent had infringed the laws of off-side. Reading tho rule strictly, it was almost impossible for the Australasian to place the ball in the scrum and yet romain on-side. He might have ilono so had ho been a champion contorr Honist who could also make a Rugby ball curl in the air, or if ho were armed with a sort of boat-hook; but in ordinary circumstances, the feat was physically impossible. It may be argued.thai if the referee always placod the ball in ihe. scrum, tho difficulty would be gut. over. But why should the reieree ub allowed to take part in tho play? His business is to see that tho game is played properly, not to nlay it himself, and tne English Rugby Union has laid it down in case law .that tho privilege of the rnferee placing the ball in tho Scrum is to bo exercised as little as possible. Duncan's Halo. Down in Dunedin,' where it is said that football is. weakest of all the big centres in the Dominion, Duncan as retcrco insists every time on nlacing the ball within the scrum. He did it when the Californians played there the other day, but it is not to be understood from that fact that Duncan was correct. It is generally admitted by all who have met the old Otago champion that he has had always a greater faith .in Duncan than in anybody else in this or in any other sphere, and faith dies hard. Again, if a referee were always allowed to place tho leather in the scrum, it would happen frequently that a good player would be handicapped if he had to wait always for the man with the whistle. It will be seen from the foregoing that winging-half-back play cannot he abolished by the imaginary scrum-line business, the suggestion of which from the New Zealand Rugby Union was not accepted by the English Rugby Union. Tho Old Country e'vEii went so far in another direction as to include a winger in its last season's international games. An eight-man scrum leads in many instances to stodgy forward loose play with no "ginger"; an eight-man scrum cannot heel out so smartly as in (he seven formation, and notwithstanding the opinion expressed by some English critics has absolutely no chance of screwing a scrum with the cohesion and precision of a New Zealand line. English Critic AmoK.

Considering the circumstances it must be somewhat surprising news for us to learn from an English critic that the present day amateur. English Rugby players punt, drop, and place-kick better than do New Zealanders, also that the Englishman is superior, to the New Zealander in dribbling tactics and screwing a scrum. The foregoing statements have lately appeared in a Sydney papor, and reading farther on it would appear .that New 'Zealanders have still a lot to learn from the amateur Rugbyists of Old England. It seems, if Ave are to believe the critic already'referred to, that New Zealanders do not punt with the lower part of their insteps, but with their toes; that the Englishmen have more of a knack of using their feet in kicking than the 'Maorilandcrs do; that the English forwards can dribble a Rugby ball quite accurately and nearly as fast as Association players. Wo also learn from this illuminating Barnum-like article that "three-quarter backs at Home in firstclass club's kick accurately and with length, and that they always have a 'screw' on the ball." It is dreadfully jolly, don't you know, to learn all this, but there must he something in the statements. Certainly, if we aro to be guided by what Sivwright's team did out hero, Percy Bush was a fine accurate dropkick. His drop-kicking up the field, nowhere in particular, was the sort of business which was discarded by New Zealand experts twenty odd years ago, but possibly Percy Bush was right, and the Now Zealanders wore wrong. Some of Mullineux's men camo to Auckland, saw one or two games there, and said that our football was fair; we would be a very good match for inferior English club teams. Pry, who knows something about cricket, said same thing in a fourpage article in his magazine. After they wero soundly beaten in Wellington Sivwright's men also said that Now Zealand Rugby would bo a very good match for English club football, but that was all. This was another dreadfully jolly remark to make, but, of course, it must have been correct. No doubt in a succeeding articlo we shall learn that there never was an "All Black" team which went Home and put up cricket scores against nearly every team in Great Britain, and that there was no truth in the assertion that they wero jockeyed out of their match against Wales by the wilful or unintentional negligence of a referee.