RULES OF RUGBY

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 210, 30 May 1919, Page 6

RULES OF RUGBY

SUGGESTED ALTERATIONS DISCUSSION BY NEW ZEALAND UNlOtf Prior to the commencement of the ordinary business of the annual meeting of the New Zoaland Rugby Union last night, an adjourned meeting was held to discuss tho position regarding suggested alterations to the rules of tho union, the laws of tho game, and the rules as to professionalism, which were considered at a meeting held in January last, and held over pending receipt of adrico on the matter from the „ English Rugby Union.

The .< secretary (Mr. W. BeauchampPlntts) reported that he had communicated with the English union, but no reply had vet been received. On behalf of tho Auckland union, Mr. F. J. Ohlson moved that in respect to Rulo 2 of tho Rules of the New Zealand union, the words "as from time to time fixed by that body" be deleted,' and the following substituted in lieu thereof "but may make such modifications as may be deemed desirable'in the interests of'-the game." By passing the resolution, said Mr. Ohlson, it would be possible to introduce modifications, which would not necessarily mean severance from the English union. It was felt that in the interests of football different modifications might be tried by the various unions, and if found satisfactory tne improvements, if any, could be commended to the approval of the English union. Mr. B. A.'Harris (Auckland) seconded tho motion. „„„.., Dr. P. P. M'Evedy (Wellington) opposed the resolution on the ground thai it would mean severance from the 'English union. Nothing should bo done which might cause the isolation of the New Zealand union. Mr J. -M'Leod tTaranaki) said his union believed that improvements could be made to the. game. He supported the attitude of the Auckland union. Mr E. Wylie (Poverty Bay) thought that 'before any representations were made ort the point they should wait until conditions became normal at Home. To make modifications without the approval' of the English union would be dangerous, and although it was regrettable that no renly had been received from England, they should wait until some advice came to hand. Mr W Drake (South Tarnnaki) supported tho motion. The world was being revolutionised, and New Zealand shou d improvo football if it thought fit to do

Mr L. Carmine (Buller) also supported the motion. He maintained that the English union was conservative, and it would take time for it to perceive the adyan. tages of changes suggested by New /ea. land. But tho English imion would eventually come round to New Zealand s way of tliinking. The Northern Union game was encroaching on the Rugby Union gamo in New Zealand, and his union felt sure that, if amendments were made such as were proposed, the League gamn would be "outed" for ever. i Mr '3. O'Sullivan (Marlborough) thou'dit it would bo a mistake to intro. duco rules from anv other game into tho Rugby-game. The League garao ap ; .peared to be a bogey to some people- but they should not be afraid, of tho Northein Union, and should 'stick to the old Rn"bv game." Better representation was° needed on tho English union, but ho believed that New Zealand should wait until things were normal at Home betoro representations were" made to permit modifications. . In reply to a. question, tho chairman said he thought that.the carrying of the motion would mean severance from the English union. He himself was m favour of some of the proposed alterations to. the laws of the game, and considered that all New Zealand should do should be to ask permission of the English union to play the game with modifications to ascertain their effect. He thought that some compromise should be made on the point under, discussion. . Dr. Crawford (Southland) said that « New Zealand were severed from the English union as a result of passing such ii motion as that proposed the soldier footballers, who had been playing good foot' ball in England and France, would have a. just grievance. Before anything in (lift nature of alteratipns was made they should await the return of the troops from abroad. It was not desirable to have a hybrid type of game played in the Dominion. • . ~ Mr. It. T. Bailey (Hawke's Bay) said ho had found that most soldiers wanted to know when the rules were going to he altered. The future governance ot football would become more an international than an English matter, nnd he was of the opinion that the attitude ot Auckland should be backed up. • Mr G. H. Dixon (Wnngnnui) said, it was inexplicable that the' English union had not replied to tho request of tho New Zealand body. It was not correct to say that the five yards rule had been adopted without the approval of the English union. In his opinion the carrying of the resolution would yniean severance from the English union, as New Zealand would be departing from tho rules of that body. To argue that they could alter the rules without breaking away from the English body was absurd. Mr G H. Pownall (Wanganui) sug-m-sted that a cablegram should be sent Home to the English union pointing out that, until a reply was received to ho representations mado by New Zealand, the lnUr Mid that it was empowered to make the alterations,. He supported the Ideii of an international board ot Co \h- OI S F. AVilson (Canterbury) said his union agreed with the motion, even if it did mean severance. Thev would. regret breaking away from ''« union, but were prepared to take the " Mr G C. Fnche (Otugo) said that had it not been for New Zealand's association with tie Old Country, a professional game, providing for payment of players, would have been played in the *Dommion ten years ago. He was afraid that if the motion were carried an undesirable element might take advantage of ?he position, and seek to allow Rugby to b- played under a professional code. Mr A M'Fhail (Canterbury) refuted the suggestion that supporters of modi.ficationTdesired to introduce professionalism He thought that the New Zealand Rugby Union was out ot touch with the P Replying to the arguments raised by tho various speakers, Mr. Ohlson said that no proof had been adduced that the carryin" of the motion would .mean secession from the*. English- union. Soldiers he had spoken to had expressed approval of the amended rules,as played in Auckland The Auckland union was opposed to professionalism, and did not believe that the system of paying players would be introduced into New Zealand. Even in England, Rugby was not played in exactly the same fashion as in New Zealand. The English union had ignored \ew Zealand, ami be believed that something on the lines/suggested by his union should be done. ■ The motion was lost by 20 votes to 2-t. Several oilier suggested alterations to the rules of the union standing in thc : name of the Auckland union wore then' withdrawn by Mr. Ohlson, and the meetinll passed oii to consideration of proposed amendments to the Laws of the. Game. These amendments were:—Abolition of the wing-forward; absolute free kicks and kicks at goal from penalties and tries; referee to put the ball into the scrum; modification of tho law governing kicking into touch, otherwise than from a ••kickoff," or "drop-out" already provided for; advantage rule to apply to "line-out" .ur. Ohlson moved that ihe amendments be agreed to. J)r. Jl'Evedy contended that to move for the "abolition of the wing forward" was pure camoullnge, as it was really intended lo introduce the imaginary lino through the back of the scrum, which was purely a Northern Union rule. 'There was' no need to pass such a motion relating to the wing forward, because under existing conditions it was permissible to arrange the players on the field so as to do away with a wing forward. '~.,,, • *• The motion to abolish the wing forward was carried by 23 votes to 21. The proposition regarding absolute free-kicks, and kicks at goal from penallies and Iries, providing that all such kicks should he absolutely free from a chnr'c, was defeated on the casting vote of thY chairman, Mr. 11. Harris. It was unanimously agreed that the 'referee should be allowed to put the be'l into Ihe scrum. By 2!) votes to 15, the motion providing for'a"modification of the law uovemini

kicking into touch, otherwise than from a "kick-off" or "drop-out," was lost. The purport of the proposition was that if tho ball dropped directly into touch from a kick, except in the case of a penalty kick, and except a player bo within his own "twenty-five," it should be brought back, and a "line-out" formed from touch at a point opposite the place where, the player was at the time he kicked the ball.

The meeting adopted the proposal that tlio advantage rule should apply to "line-out" play. This, in effect, wilt mean: (1) 'if a player throws the ball so as not lo alight at right angles to the touch-line, or (2) if the ball .19 "knocked-on" and the opposing side gam the advantage, in either case, from immediate succeeding play, the game goes on. Mr. Ohlson moved that tlm delegates bo asked to bring before their unions the amendments which were agreed upon with.a view to having them adopted in their local fixtures. Mr. C. A. Mathieson (Auckland) seconded the motion. The chairman explained that, before the amendments could bo approved finally for all competitions, they would have to receive the approval of the English Rugby union. In the meantimo, he took it that it was desirable to see what effect tho alterations would have in the standard of play. Mr. W. Drake (South Canterbury) moved an amendment that before the alterations agreed to were played they should receive the assent of the English Rugby ■Union. "Mr. H.,D. Thompson (Bay of Plenty) seconded the amendment. Tho amendment ,-was rejected by 24 votes to 19. , • Mr. J. H. Lynskey (Wellington) moved a further amendment that the recommendations bo not put into force until 1920. Mr. Dixon (Wanganui) seconded this amendment, which was also kst. • The motion was carried on the voices.