RUGBY PUZZLES

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 101, 1 May 1930, Page 15

RUGBY PUZZLES

TWO RULES CLEARED UP

REQUEST FOR RULING

N.Z.R.U/S- DECISIONS

Kules sometimes af*e perplexing. The International Hug by Board's rule governing a "fair catch "or "mark" as it is commonly culled, which is being played in 'Wellington this season, is one that has been wrinkling brows during the past few days and various opinions have been expressed on the interpretation. The Management Committee of the New Zealand Eugby Union was asked to give a ruling on this puzzler last evening at the request of tho Wellington Referees' Association made through the Wellington Rugby Union, ancl the committee had a long discussion before a decision was reached. Another matter the committee was asked to decide'was the action a referee should take when.a ball went ri^-ht through a scrum without being touched. To this the committee also supplied an answer. The chairman (Mr. S. S. Dean) quoted the English Union's rule that a player claiming a fair catch must, immediately he takes the ball,, make a heel.mark at .the'spot where he.takes the catch. • Mr. A. C. Kitto asked what tho position was if a-player who took the ball when he was in tha air made a heel mark when he came down to the ground. • Mr. Dean said that that was not a mark. Mr. Kitto: "If an All Black -who went Homo on the 1024 tour says it is, what do you say?" . DEFENSIVE MEASTJBE. Mr. Dean: "I would like to know where ii was ruled that way." His experience on the 11924 tour was that it was practically an impossibility to get a mark.- There had been much discussion on the question of the mark at the'lmperial Eugby conference, at i which a mark had been looked upon . as purely a defensive measure. ! Mr. Kitto contended that if a player ■who took the 'ball when he was in the air made a. heel mark when he came down to the ground a mark should be given- Ho asked the secretary (Mr. I A. E. Neilson) what' his experience was during the Springbok ■ tour -in- 1921. Mr. Neilson: "My experience was; that a.mark is a mark only when the heel mark is made practically simultaneously with tho. catching of the ball." ' * ' Mr. E. Wylie suggested that the only ; way to achieve unanimity was to rule that both feet should! be on the ground.1 Many years ago, said Mr. Dean, when the English rules were interpreted strictly in New Zealand, the general feeling was that when a man jumped up in the air for the ball in the face of a pack of forwards and landed on the ground with the ball in his possession it was really brilliant play— which was still the position —a_Dd that the player ! was more deserving of a mark than a man taking a "sitter." That was the reason New Zealand obtained permission to adopt an alternative making provision for a mark to be given if a player called out "mark." Mr. Wylie suggested that the object behind the change in New Zealand was to prevent misunderstanding between the player and the referee. .Mr. E. iM'Kenzier "It i^ no use a man claiming a mark in the air. He must claim a^jriark on the ground, provided he lands." '.■-.:' ON THE 1924 TOUE. 'Mr. Dean stated that on the 1924 AH Black tour a mark had been very difficult to obtain. A voice: "That is the object of the rule." . Mr. Neilson contended that the only way that would satisfy the British players was for the New Zealanders to have both feet on the ground. Mr; J. G. Koaehe: "I think it is the only way out of it." ■ Mr.H;S.Leith: "I think if we give a decision ■ otherwise we are courting trouble." Mr. T. A. Fletcher moved that a mark or fair catch should be allowed only when, a player has both feet. on the ground and is stationary for a moment and marks ,the\spot with his heel. Mr. M'Kenzie said he thought once the union gave a ruling all the unions would fall into line. The words "stationary for a moment" in Mr. Fletcher's motion did not meet with general approval, but Mr. Fletcher said ho had inserted them advisedly. "This question is a very important one," said Mr. Dean. When it was realised that in all the matches played at Home by, the 1905 and 1924 All Black,teams only one goal was kicked from a; mark, the difficulty in obtaining mark would be appreciated. Mr. Wylie: "There are not1 many goals kicked from marks." ■■ . ; Mr. Dean: "Not many, perhaps, but some." ■ , . In further discussion Mr. Dean and Mr. Kitto maintained '.hat in New Zealand there was inclined'to be too much theory work with the referees and not enough practical application. There was no seconder to Mr. Fletcher's motion, and. eventually it was decided, on' the motion of M,r. Kitto that a "fair, catch" should be allowed only to a player who has both feet on the ground and claims " the "fair, catch" by making a heel mark. QUESTION OF '.FACT. . the ruling asked for on the other point, Mr. Dean said it appeared to him.to be a question of fact for the referee, who had. to determine whether the ball had been put into the scrum fairly. Mr. Kitto: "If a rcferuc has got any sense he knows when the ball has been purposely thrown through or has been put in straight." _ Mr. Neilson said he thought tho English rule on the subject was an unfortunate one because it contradicted itself. It said that., a ball was not fairly in a scrummage if it went right j through; but a ball could be put into a scrummage in a perfectly fair manner; and still go right through. j It was decided that a penalty kick should bo awarded only if in tho opinion of the referee a player deliberately put the ball into the scrummage in such a way that it could not be hooked, and that in all other cases of the ball passing right through a fresh scrummage should be ordered.