THE RUGBY CODE

Evening Post, Volume XCVII, Issue 126, 30 May 1919, Page 4

THE RUGBY CODE

RULES AND LAWS OF

THE GAME

ARE ALTERATIONS . ESSENTIAL ?

RELATIONS WITH ENGLISH

UNION

A PROTRACTED DISCUSSION.

Last night, prior to proceeding with the business of the annual meeting of the Council of the New Zealand Rugby Football JJnion, consideration was given to matters which had been adjourned at the special meeting held in January.

The President (Air. H Harris) said that the meeting had beea adjourned in order to obtain a ruling from the English Union as to whether certain proposals made foT alterations in the rules and Jaws of the game would, if carried, mean severance from the latter body. It was reported by the secretary (Mr. W. Beauchamp-PJatts) that although letters and urgent cable messages had been sent no reply had been received from the English Union. Mr. F. J. Ohlson (Auckland) . then moved, an amendment to Rule 2 of the constitution. This rule reads as followe : "It .(the New Zealand Rugby Union) shall affiliate with the English. Eugby Union, and shall adopt thala'.vs of football, and the rules as to professionalism as from time to time fixed by that body." Mr. Ohlson'3 amendment was : That the words "as from time to time fixed by that body" be deleted and the following substituted in lieu thereof : "But may make sttch modifications as may be deemed desirable in the interests of the- game." 'JGIVE THEM A TRIAL." In support of this he urged that'certain modifications might be made, and, in view of the delay in getting the sanction of the English Union, they should be given a trial in order to get the opinions of the different unions upon them. He thought if the meeting gave the power to make the .suggested modifications in the game in New Zealand, no objection would bo raised in England. Mr. Ohlson instanced the'five yards rule, to which England had not raised any objection, and said that the Auckland Union was firmly of the opinion that the proposals now would not mean severance from the English Union. Auckland did nqt want severance; nor did it think severance could be caused by the slight modification suggested. Auckland did not want to interfere with the present amateur game, but something had to be done, and England was too far away; it took- too long to get their wishes carried out. The fact was that in the interests of Rugby' football the different modificatione ought to be tried, and then they would be in a position to strongly recoirimend them to the English Union. Mr.' B. A. Harris (Auckland) secondedthe motion. SEVERANCE INEVITABLE. Dr. P J. M'Ev.edy (Wellington) strongly opposed the motion as one which, if carried, would mean severance. Auckland had said they did not want severance, but there was nothing to show that the proposals would riot mean severance. They wanted some assurance to that effect before passing the proposals. He strongly held that severance would be inevitable, although Auckland did not want it or isolation. It would mean the end of the Rugby game in New Zealand. They should, he contended, make no move until they got an assurance from the English Union. Mr. M'Leod (Taranaki) said if they were always to be bound by what England said then the game in New Zealand would not go ahead. His union thought that improvements in the game could and i,should be made, and- that they would not | result in severance from tie English j . [ Union. But if such slight modification ! were not to b3 allowed without severance j then he, as an individual, would say sever. The game would not go down in New Zealand. A PLEA FOR DELAY. Mr. E. -Wylie (Poverty Bay) referred to the special conditions existing in England, which might have prevented the receipt of a reply from the English Union, and asked why they should not wait until things became a little more.j normal. The alterations proposed might not seem on the face of them to be much, but if they were adopted it would mean the establishing of a very dangerous precedent. Inch by inch the whole system and plan of the Rugby game would be changed, perhaps not by those in charge at present, but by men of less mature experience and newcomers. Soon would they have a. game which nobody would recognise as the good old-Rugby game. Ths time was not ripo for any change to bo made at present, and he would recommend the holding of a conference of all the bodies \vhi9h played the Rugby game. Then if changes were necessary let them bs made in a constitutional manner. Mr. Drake (South Canterbury) supported the motion. He referred to the spirit of revolution in theNvorld to-day, and said if they did not keep abreast of the times they fall sadly backward. He felt the English Union had treated the New Zealand Union with scant courtesy. \ "UP AGAINST IT." Mr. Carmine (Buller) also supported the motion, urging that New Zealand should bo allowed to control its own game. The English body was a conservative body, and it would take a long time to convince it of the advantage of the new proposals, and bring them round to the Js rew Zealand way of thinking. To-day the Rugby game in New Zealand was "up against it." In the Buller district there was discontent, and there was no room for two games; if the League game got a hold Rugby would be "outed," and the League game had already got a, hold in Greymouth. Mr. O'Sullivan (MarllVirough) held that the time was not ripe for drastic changes, but a-nyhow they should move along constitutional lines. It looked to him as if behind the motion there was a move for the isolation of New Zealand. Mr. Ohlson : I said not. j Ulr. O'Sullivan: Then it must be for the removal of the headquarters of I Rugby to New Zealand He referred to j the progress of the old Rugby in the [ Allied countries, and held that the I League game was evidently a bogey to some unions, while the suggested amendments had been gleaned from that I game. With, the introduction of League | rules Rugby would no longer be Rugby; jit would be a, hybrid, game. "Make haste slowly " was a good motto, and he j felt the key to the position was the j securing of better representation in the | Home Union. Now there was only one representative for Australia and New Zealand. New Zealand was important so far as Rugby is concerned, but they should not let their heads run away with their feet; otherwise they would undoubtedly get in a mess. With better representation they could let England know that they desired, and were going to have, alterations to the game, but they must move in a constitutional way. If the amendments proposed were now adopted, it would undoubtedly mean the isolation of Now Zealand jit would certainly mean severance, and

would place New Zealand on a pedestal which would not be a glorious one, although some people seemed to think so.

THE PRESIDENT'S VIEW.

In reply to Dr. Ritchie Crawford (Southland), the President said that although he had thought differently befovo, he now thought that tho adoption of the proposals would mean severance ( . It would lie better to have "a •conference, and he would suggest that the mover withdraw his motion, and let the maoting go on to discuss the outlined alterations to the game. Then if they decided in favour of any of them to send them in to the English Union, and ask permission to play, them in our local football. "That, I think/ he said, "is all the Northern Union—(loud la.ugh.tci:) —I mean the- Auckland Union wants.-" The President added that he would .lie dead against frequent twittering with tho laws of the game. Dr. Ritchie was firmly of opinion that tho proposals meant severance. He made a plea for the soldier footballers not yet returned. If alterations were made in the game, and. the men on returning, after playing good football in Europe, found that the action of the delegates had resulted in the isolation of New Zealand (preventing international football), then they would have a very real grievance. It would be just such a grievance as they had in connection with the liquor referendum—that the vote was taken in their absence. They in New Zealand wanted to do all they could to ■ prevent Rugby from developing into a. hybrid, mongrel game; they did not want to kill New Zealand Rugby, and he would, urge a postponement of the matter until the time when the soldiers had all returned. THE TIME TO ACT. Mr. E. T. Bailey (Hawkes Bay) said tho players wanted the amendments .to the game without having, to wait for a decision of the . '-'hidebound" English Union. The future government of football was going to be, he hoped, by an i International Board of Control, and not solely by the English Union. The time to act was now; they had already waited too long as appreciable inroads into i Rugby had been made by the League ! game. He supported the motion. AVOEDS OF WARNING. Mr. G. H. Dixon (Wanganui) held that the absence of a reply from-the English Union could only be due to some uuforseen circumstance. He wished to correct . Mr. Ohlson's remark .in regard to the syds rule, and said that this was not adopted without authority from, England. And why get that a-uthority ? Because that proposal had been to alter one of- the fundamentals" of the game. The issues which arose from the motioneither meant that New . Zealand would act as a sepa-rate body—entirely separate from the rest of the world—or it would not. He firmly believed, so sure as night followed day, that the adoption of the modifications without authority wouldmean seveiT.nca.from the English' Union. If they a-ltei-ed any of the rules of the English Union they would automatically cease to bo joinedl to that body To argue that they in. New Zealand could, at. their sweet will, alter tire .-rules and still remain an integral part of the parent body was absurd. To-carry the motion would mean cutting adrift from the English Union to the great detri- > meufc of Rugby in New Zealand Some of the amendments at least would, undoubtedly mean an alteration in the fundamental principles of the game. Mr. G. IT. Pown&U (Wanganui) censored the English Union for not having replied to the New Zealand Union. ', He favoured the operation of an International Board of Control, in fact as well as in name. It was not, however, so. much the question of control of th* game as that everybody, should be playing the same game. CANTERBURY FIRM. Mr. S. F.. Wilson (Canterbury) trusted- that Mr Ohfson would stick to his guns, notwithstanding . tho chairman's suggestion. Canterbury, in supporting the motion, hoped the carrying of it would net mean sevorance, bat was prepared to take that risk. If it did mean severance, no one would regTet it more than Canterbury,'but they were going on with it. He contended that they could alter rules without going to England, and asked why Auckland, in playing amended rules; three years ago, were not automatically • cut adrift from tho New Zealand Union? There was at this stage some discussion on a question as to whether, if the motion was defeated and tile delegates then approved of certain amendments in the laws of the game, the unions could play the amended rules. Mr. G. C. Fa-che (Otago)' said unions conld play the rules, but would do so with the risk of the English Union saying : "You no longer belong to us." H*is union was of opinion that it could not support a motion, the carrying of which would mean severance. Mr. Fache deplored a remark which had fallen from a previous speaker that Rugby in, New Zealand was democratic, while m England it was a "class" game, and in this connection referred to Wales as an example. Rugby Was a great leveller, and it was a libel on Rugby, wherever played, to say it was a "class" game. Before taking the risk of severance they should consider, if the unions of the country were to be left to make their' ; own rules, the danger of Rugby becoming a game not the amateur game. Had it not been for the association with "the 1 English Union ten years ago this union would now be playing, if not the Northern Union'game, at least a professional game, providing for the payment of players. The only reason this was not carried ten years ago was the very reason they were hestitating. oveop at present. There was, he felt, an element behind the present movement for the payment of players. , Mr. M'Phail (Canterbury) deprecated the insinuation about professionalism. If anyone present was of that opinion they | should go right over to the League game. IHe did not think the Management Committee was in touch with the players. ■ MR. OHLSON IN REPLY. Mr. Ohlson, in reply, said'that neither Mr. Dixon nor Dr. M'Evedy could give any assurance that the motion, if carried, would mean severance. Dr. M'Evody: Yes; constitutional rule. Mr. Ohlson again urged that the amendments should be iecomm»;;dcd to England after they had been given a trial here. Returned soldiers in Auddairl were of tho opinion that tho alterations in vogue there were a vast improvement on the old game,; and England itself had different interpretations of the laws of the game. All the delegates were, ho was sure, inspired with the best intentions; Auckland did not want professionalism, and was not going to have it. He was sure the question of the payment of players was not going to creep in. Nothing would convince him that the' modifications proposed would mean severance.: he thought the English Union would take little note of them. Mr. Ingram • (Southland): Will you make non-severance a condition of your motion? (Laughter.) THE MOTION DEFEATED. The motion, on bsing put to the meeting, was lost by 24 votes to 20. Other amendments to rules of which Auckland had given notice were then allowed to lapse. LAWS OF THE GAME. The meeting then proceeded to deaL with notices of motion refering to-modi-fications in the laws of the game. . Mr. Ohloon iwiked, before going on, it delegates were in favour, would it bo

possible that the amended laws be given a trial in club and inter-union matches.

Ihe president replied that under Rule 47 this would hardly bo operative except, perhaps, in.club fixtures.

The. president was then asked how things would go in the event of an appeal, if tho amended rule^ were being played.

Mr. Dixon, as ex-chairaian of the Management Committee, replied that if a committee were elected to carry out the constitution it was bound to do so. They could not .elect a committee to undermine the constitution.

The President agreed- with Mr. Dixon. Personally he would like U, see the suggested amendments tried if it were possible.

Mr. Ohlson asked if Rule 4? could not bo deemed to be inoperative for twelve months.

Mr. M'Lcod said- that if the amendments could not bo tried they were up against a "dead end." It was the intention of Taranaki to play the amended rules this season. This was not-decided upon by the Taranaki Union, but by the players, 'and he wondered.-what attitude the Management Committee of the New Zealand Union would take up if Taranaki played these< t rules: The general opinion was that .some chaiigu was wanted, and it would be wise if the -Management Committee^ would assimilate some of this spirit. If not, he feared there was going to be trouble, which nobody wanted Ho would urge the committee not to stick to the "bald letter of the law."

THE WING-FORWARD. Mr. Ohlson then moved, in accordance with notice : :

"Abolition of the Wing-Forward.— Free kicks by way 6f penalties shall be awarded (a) if any player not in a scrummage advances beyond a line drawn through the back of .his own scrummage parallel with the goal-line before the' ball comes out of such scrummage, and (b) if any pjayer in a scrummage breaks away before the ball comes out oE such, scrummage."

Dr. M'Evedy described the motion as camouflage of the worst sort. Its adoption would mean the' introducing of a Northern Union rule contrary to the fundamentals of Rugby. He pointed out that1 there was-no need to alter the rules to abolish the wing-forward; it was purely a matter of the arrangement of the men in the field; The unions, by mutual agreement could do it.

Mr. Wilson (Canterbury)' dissented from this view

Mr. Dixon agreed that the adoption of the motion would bo interfering with a t fundamental .rule of the gams,-.and held there was no necessity for the rule. The motion was carried by 25 votes to 21. . ' OTHER SUBJECTS. Other motions were then dealt with as follows without discussion :— ' Absolute Free Kicks, and Kicjis at Goal from Penalties and Tries.—All such kicks to be absolutely free from a charge. Any player to be allowed to place or kick the ball. Thp placer and kicker need not necessarily- bo ( the samo player.—Lost on the casting vote Of the/president. Referee to Put the Ball into Scrum.— The referee is to put the ball into the scrum on all occasions.—Carried on the. voices. . ... Modification of tho Law Kovernins Kicking into Touch, otherwise than from a "Kick-off" or "Drop-out" already provided for. —If the ball'drops directly into touch'from a kick,' except in the case of fc penalty kick, and except, in the case of 'his own "twenty-five," it shall be brought back, and a "line-out" formed from itouch at a point opposite the plaoe where the player was at the time he kicked the ball—Lost by 20 votes to 15. . Advantage Rule to Apply to "Line-out., Play.—This in effect will mean.-' (1) If a player throws the ball out so as not to alight at right angles to the touchlino. or (2) if the ba-llis "knocked-on" and the opposing side to gain the advantage, in either case,..from immediate, succeeding1 play, the game goes on. —Carried on the voices. .

REFERRED TO DELEGATES. After somo discussion, during which Mr. Dixon and Dr. M'Evedy warned delegates of the danger of not abiding by the constitution, Mr. Ohlson movedi that the 'delegates be' asked to bring before thoir unions the. alterations agreed upon with a,, view to their being adopted in their local, competitions. Mr. Mafehiesoh seconded-the motion. It was pointed out by Mr. Dixon that these would not bo binding on airuniom, and there was a danger of affairs getting into an awful, tangle. Dr.- M'Evedy: They could not be binding. ' . ■ The President, thought no harm could be done by giving the. amendments a trial locally. Mr. J. H. Ly'nskey (Petone) asked if the amended rules would be playable before the.English Union gave its decision. The President: Yes. Mr. Lynskey then moved as an amendment that the alterations be not put into effect ..until approved of by the English Union. This was seconded by Mr. T-hompson (Bay of Plenty). . Mr, Wylie: If tha charges aro not uniform there is going to be trouble. The amendment -was rejected by 24 votes to 19. As a further amendment, Mr, Lynskey moved that the alterations do not come into force until 1920.. This was also .lost, and' the motion -wan carried on the .voices. THE REINSTATEMENT PROBLEM. There was then somo discussion on a point raised by Mr. Ohlson as to the reinstatement of players who had played the Northern Union game. It was eventually agreed that any player is eligible to play Rugby who has not been reported to the New Zealand Union and dealt with by that body for a, breach of the rales regarding professionalism. . ■ ■' At this stajre—five minutes past mid-' night, the delegates proceeded to hold the statutory annual meeting.