ATHLETIC SPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1132, 20 May 1911, Page 13

ATHLETIC SPORTS.

RUOIiY FOOTBALL. THE SPECTACLES FOR TO-DAY. The Rugby Union supply tho following :—The chief attraction in the Rugby games this afternoon should bo the meeting between St. James and Poneko at the Park, and Petone v. Oriental at Potono. After their defeat of Oriental on Saturday last, the St. James team must bo regarded as a strong combination, and likely to end tho season very near the top. Their forwards are of the light, vigorous order, whilo their backs appeal to f.pi-ctators by reason of the fast open stylo of play cultivated. Despite two defeats on successive Saturdays—a now experience for a Ponoko team—tho P»noko team is still to bo reckoned with. Up till now Petono has proved successful •■in all engagements, and, with Oriental debited with but ono loss, considerable attention will bo focused on their encounter at Petone this afternoon. Patrons from town aro reminded that tho train leaves To Aro at 2.10, and Lambton at 2.20. NEW ZEALAND LEAGUE TOUR. •By Telegraph— tress Association-Copyrieht Sydney, May 19. Tho Rugby. League _ has voted tho money to defray tho initial expenses of the Now Zealand team coming to Australia in June. REGARDING "THE TACKLE." The following new rule and interpretation bearing on "tho tackle" is forwarded by Air. Sievers, secretary of the Wellington Referees' Association:— "A tackle is when the holder of the ball is held by one or more players of tho opposite side, _ so that ho cannot pass it. Note: A player cannot bo considered as tackled unless he is so held that he cannot pass tho ball. Thus, if a player is collared ,<but not held so that he cannot pass tho ball) ho may pass, even although .lie has been brought to the ground, and ho may (should ho be within reaching distanco of. the touch or goal-lines) placo the ball in touch, or score a try. It should bo noted, however, that bo must do so. immediately, otherwise- he may bo penalised as in Note (2), following section (B), (C), (D), Law 11. Wheu a player is tackled, the ball can only be brought into play witli the foot." LATEST ABOUT THE LAWS. At the International Rugby Union Beard meeting in March, tno Scottish. Rugby Union initiated a discussion on the question of "teet up in the'scrummage.'.' Scottish publio schools have recognised the difficulty of enforcing tho-penalty for fott up, and as referees differ in their practice they would favour a return to the old rule. "The Field" recorded it as "a fact that strict referceiug at the opening of a. game has been effective in securing an' observance of tho rule, but timely severity of this kind is exceptional." It adds that "Even if the penalty for feet up wero abolished, the rule which penalises wilfully preventing tin ball from being fairly put into a scrummage would still hold good, and would enable the stricter kind of referee to tako strong action." Tho board also discussed Rule 14; which reads as follows: "If a player, when c'<er the goal-line and in possession of the ball be tackled before tho ball is grounded, the ball should be scrummaged five yards from tho goal-line opnosito the spot where the player was tackled." To make this clearer it was decided to alter tho wording to: "If tho ball when over tho goal-lino and in possession of a player bo fairly held by an opposing player boforo it is grounded, it shall bo scrummaged fivo yardS pp.-.. posito tho spot where tho ball was held. The terms in possession" and "fairly held" will next require definition. Tho board also endeavoured, to,simplify the rule regarding ball in touch, which came into effect only last 6ea:on. The rule lays it down that when the ball is in touch it shall be brought into play by the side opposito to that last touching it in the field of play, except when a player carrying the ball is forced into touch by an opponent. When it was first adopted the ambiguity of tho words "forced into touch" was pointed out in tho press. Tho board has ruled that it should mean physically forced into touch. A player who wishes to be forced into touch will, of course, yield to a show of compulsion. It was decided to redraft the circular letter to Teforees, pointing out the many instances in. which rules are honoured more in the breach than in the observance. As' tho rules now stand a referee is expected to make good their deficiencies by exercising a wide discretion, sinco otherwise ho will have to retard tho game by frequent whistling. Tho only hope, therefore, concludes "The Field," of securing any approach to uniformity in referoeing is frequently to reviso tho list of referees. ALTERING A DECISION, In the Blackheath v, Newport match on March 25, an incident raises a curious point of law. Each side.scored a. placed goal and a dropped goal, but Mr. Potter Irwin, the referee, at first disallowed the Newport dropped goal in the helief that it was a punt, and then allowed it later on, when assured by the players that it was a drop and not a pnnt. "There is," says an English critic, "no express nilo forbidding a referee to alter his decision, but in tho circular letter to players and referees, issued by the International Board in 1906, it is distinctly stated that 'a referee, once ho ha 3 given a decision, cannot alter it.' The word 'cannot' is absurd; it should be 'may not,' and must be so read. In terms of this dictum, which is imperative and not moroly directory, one may take jt that the International Board, and hence the Rugby Union, would disallow the goal on appeal. Tha real difficulty is, whether tho circular letter has no more force than caso law; it certainly is not statute law. On tho other hand, the decision was clearly given in terms of tho spirit of tho game, and that is a point of view upon which the same circular letter lays much stress. Whatever, therefore, be tho law, none will dispute that the decision was a sporting one, and hence in keeping with the spirit and traditions of the ffamo.". Tho match was drawn, and bat for tho magnanimity of Blackheath detailed abovo it would have been a victory for that club.