THE BOOKS OF RULES

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 64, 2 April 1937, Page 14

THE BOOKS OF RULES

(To the Editor) Sir. — I read with interest "Magpie's" notes and comments on Rugby in Saturday' s issue, but I feel that certain stateme»t« made ja the latter portion

under the heading of "International Rules", cannofc be allowed to go unchallenged. I don't know who "Magpie" is, nor do I care, but as he apparently has the welfare of Rugby at heart, I consider he sliould have made certain of facts before publishdng unwarranted criticism of the New Zealand Rugby Referees' Association. If "Magpie" had only. taken the trouble to see for himself, he would find that the rule book issued by the New Zealand Rugby Referees' Association, is an exact copy, word for word, of the English Rugby Football Union Rules, and has been confirmed by the iNew Zealand Rugby Union.. Apparently "Magpie" has never read the New Zealand book, otherwise he would certainly not have needed to quote from the English book the ruling relating to touch judges. The second paragraph Law 11, on page 16 of the New Zealand handbook reads: "He (the touch judge) must lower his flag immediately the ball has been thrown in by a piayer of the team entitled to do so, but if the ball is otherwise thrown in, or the piayer throwing in the ball put either foot into the fietf. of play, he must keep his flag raised and. the ball shall be thrown in again. Sir, this paragraph is quite clear and it makes one wonder why a ruling was necessary. From page 30 onwards the handbook contains intea-pretations and rulings, which have all been confirmed by the New Zealand Rugby Union, and on page 43, "Magpie" will, if he cares to,' find the ruling relating to players remaining passive during the taking of a penalty kick, exactly as it appears in his article. This, Sir, goes to prove that at least some of the -"notes and interpretations" which "Magpie" objects to have been helpful to referees. Yours, etc., JOE GEENTY Hastings, March 20, 1937. The handbook of the N.Z.R.R.A. devotes 20 of its pages to the Laws of Rugby, faithfully set out according to the English book, but there follows 26 pages of. Notes and Rulings, mostly New Zealand-made, and it is these that cause confusion. Although ihe "Notes and Rulings" m&y have the sanction of the N.Z.R.U. they cut no ice with a visiting international side# Each week in Hastings and Napier touch judges, I have noticed, do not insist on the observance of the second paragraph of Law 11, and I can only surmise that th^ referee is not particular either. On page 43 referred to by Mr Geenty I find m one place that "players standing at or near the mark must not attempt to stop the ball in its flight." So, if eight players were "at or near the mark" the other seven could turn h«ndsprings if they wished. What constitutes "at or near" is debatable, but the' rule in the English hand-book on the subject leaves no doubt in the piayer' s mind; it says all players. If Mr Geenty will refer to a ruling from the N.Z.R.R.A. not two years old, qualifying the* word passive and to .whom it applies, he will agree that our New Zealand rules can be conflicting, and, in addition mystifying at least to players and to "Magpie". too.— "Magpie"