RUGBY RULES NEED CLARIFICATION

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 61, 30 March 1937, Page 6

RUGBY RULES NEED CLARIFICATION

— Press Association. )

Referees Debate Matter at Wellington CONFUSING POINTS

(By Telwaph-

i WELLINGTON, March 27. The contention that there was too much of what he described as "semiilawyer parlance" in a number of the rules of Rugby football was made by Mr J, B. Finlayson (Auckland) at the continuation of the New Zealand Rugby Referees' Association 's annual conference .to-day. Mr Finlayson said that the language | used in some of the laws made difficulty for referees and players alike. If the laws could be f ramed in a mor'e straightforward, simple, and definite way he thought there would be less argument j and the introduction of fewer red her- I dings. Mr J. H. Hardie (King Country) suggested that there was a tendency to read too much into the laws. After all the men who framed the laws were not asses. Mr Finlayson said that if the previoua speaker could define " at or near the mark" without being absolutely specific and definite as to distance, as in the offside rule, he must be indeed a Rugby lawyer. Mr Hardie replied that "at or near; fhe mark" had been defined at the lastj conference as being within a few yards i either way, or, one might say, a fewj yards on either side. i English and New Zealand Rules, ! At the annual meeting of the associa- 1 tion later, Mr H. J. McKenzie (Waira-j rapa) moved as a recommendafion toj the executive that when the rule book; j was reprinted the English rule book be j icopied. He said he thought that if that j |were done it would result in simpliflca-i 'tion. 1 Mr G. Bradley (Wellington) said thatj Ithe last time the New Zealand book wasIprinted th'e English book was handed to the printer to take a copy of it. Mr E. S. Hylton and Mr J. A. Wilson: llt is word for word out of the English 'book. A Christchurch delegate said that he had heard it contended in Christchurch that there was some difference between the English book and the New Zealand book. Mr McKenzie said he had not raised the matter at t"he instance of the Wairarapa association. He had been approached on tbe question by Rugby officials throughout New Zealand. Mr Bradley said that the New Zeailand book was word for word the same ias the English book on the laws of the game. Of recent years notes had been icreeping in in fhe. English rule book. i A delegate suggested that Mr McKenzie had not read his rule book for a few yearS. (Laughter). i Mr McKenzie contended that there jwere a lo.t of little "new tricks" in the |New Zealand book that were confusing 'to referees.

In reply to Mr J, A. Wilson, Mr McKenzie contended there were too many notes in the New Zealand book. Mr J. Dixon (chairman) said that he could assure delegates that the rules of the game were exactly the same in the two books. At the back of the New Zealand book interpretations, which were the English or New Zealand Rugby Union interpretations, were printed. The motion was carried on the voices, whereupon Mr Hylton contended that in view of the faet that the laws in the New Zealand book were reprinted from the English book the position was ridiculous. Mr McKenzie: I rise to a point of order. The motion was carried. Mr Hylton: But we do print the book according to the English book. What you want to do is to affirm that we continue to do so. The chairman said that that was the way he interpreted the resolution.