RULES OF RUGBY.

Hokitika Guardian, 3 January 1925, Page 4

RULES OF RUGBY.

NEW ZEALAND’S PROPOSALS. ALTERATIONS APPROVED BY A SOUTH A Ell I CAN. The altoratons in the rules of Rughv which Mr S. Harris, of Christchurch, has been delegated by the New Zealand Rugby Union to propose at ! the forthcoming Imperial Rugby Conference in England, have already received considerable publicity in England and in other Dominions. The South African view is expressed I>v P. S. T. Jones, in the following article, which has appeared in the "Cape Times”:— TRY AND DROPPED GOAL. The proposal of the New Zealanders to differentiate between a try and a dropped goal is. in my view, sound. I. have stated that I do not favour the idea of making a try of more value than a penalty, and have given the reasons for my view. The proposal is hardly likely to liml favour 111 Great Britain; I am inclined to think m because it was only during the last few years that the authorities increased tlie probability of a goal being scored from a penalty by disallowing the charge. If the opinion of those responsible for the rules was that a penally goal should not lie of equal value with a try. wliv did they prevent n charge, a course of action which lias certainly enhanced the chances of the kicker:-' As In I lie. reltilive values nl a try and a dropped goal, there seems to be no doubt that popular opinion is 111 favour of a reversal of the existing order of tilings. Assuming tbaL tlie value of the tfv and the penalty goal remains at three imitils, it seems to me that the dropped goal and the goal Iron! a mark should he brought down to two points. Neither of them should he of equal value with the try or, for the matter of that, a 1 tenuity goal. VALUE (IK A PENALTY.

The penalty goal is the result, ol a suet essl'ul kick given for a serious infringement of Hie rules, while in the ease of a mark- goal there lias been no infringement of the rules involving a penalty. A mark may be made from what arc regarded as iit.iuor infringements, viz., a knuek-011, or a throw forward, and. ol course I nun a kick. Ordinarily the two former are not regarded as infringements which call for the application of a penalty, and it is difficult to follow tin' course ol reasoning by which tlie mark goal lias in the past been placed on an equality with a try or, for the matter ol that, a penalty. In days gone by a mark goal used to count as much as four points. This, it seems, was due to the loot that originally a goal of anv sort was regarded as being the main object of the game, and stood to win against any number of tries.

I In mv opinion, a penalty goal and a try should ionium of equal value, and tlio drop goal (which is frcquoiill.i tin* outcome l oI lucre chance) and tlic murk coal stand at somethin'; less, via., two points. I'llKK KICKS. The* excerpt of the proposals emanating from the New Zealanders contains the following, viz:--" In a free-kick the kicker should lie allowed to place the hall for himself.” 'the word freekick is used in the rules to cover kicks from marks and penalties, so we must take it that the proposal is meant to do awav with the charge in both. At present there is no charge in the case nt a penalty, while the charge in the case of a free-kick is still permitted. The reason which led to the abolition of the charge in the ease of a penalty probable was that the authorities wished to oivo (he side to which the penalty is given the fullest henelit possible, and to rub it into the offending side. The frequency with which rules are deliberately broken to-day makes on feel that when a penalty is awarded the offenders should be penalised to the full, and seeing that the charge has gone, there appears to he no valid reason why the kicker should not place the hall for himself. The proposal cannot, however, he applied to the free-kick resulting from a mark until the charge in this instance has also been done awav with. The fact that a free-kick, as distinguished from a penalty, is not the result of a serious breach of the rules seems to point to the view that the charge should he retained, and. d this is continued, the kicker and placer shifuhl he different persons. One might (list as well advocate the disallowance of the charge ... the case of a kick at goal from a try, and allow

the kicker to place the ball for himself. The proposed change does not seem to he based mt tiny reason to commend it. THE LINE-OUT. One now comes to a proposal of tlie New Zealanders which apparently has for its object the opening out of the game, not only in the area between the two twenty-fives, but also in the twenty-lives. Jt reads its follows: “That the throw-out of touch of live yards he made general.” 'The wording of the proposal indicates that in New Zealand a rule somewhat different to what we play under applies. \Ye have no rule which requires the ball to he thrown out into touch any specific minimum distance. It appears that the English Union (or was it the International Hoard?) has in one or two respects allowed a deviation from the general rule to lie introduced in a sister Dominion. This Is a policy which should he stopped at once. The rules of the game must be uniform, n,nd, as. stated in a previous article, the way to maintain this uniformity is to bring all concerned into otto International Union. TO OBVIATE THE MAI L: The proposal has everything to commend it, if, as one anticipates, it will do away with the unseemly struggling that goes on amongst the forwards

near the touch line. Tin' hall is thrown in by the side that is being pressed it matter of a yard or less, a mass of force strength is concentrated at otic spot near touch, tt struggle ensues which is all so much wasted energy, and the ball is forced into touch at or about the same spot. Then the wholeis repeated unless the hall has to lie brought into play by the side doing thq pressing. I have long felt that some rule which will lessen this touch line struggling is essential. It is during this unseemly mauling that much of the had feeling that is exhibited in test matches is engendered. Players mark one another down for trials of strength in these mauls, and a bit of gruelling administered by one to the other leads to tt subsequent attempt by the latter to get his own hack with interest. And so it happens that what is started in good spirit eventually leads to a manifestation of strength with more force than is necessary. The change, which will not entirely do away with what Captain E. E. Booth describes as " prolonged nondescript wrestling matches,” will help to reduce them. It will be necessary to

have a dotted line five yards inside the touch lines, and rules will have to he drafted imposing a penalty on any player who takes the hail between the touch and this dotted line. TEN YARDS FROM TOUCH. The fifth proposal hv the New Zealanders to the effect that "the ten yards front touch scrummages he made general all over the filed,” might tie regarded as another step towards preventing the play being concentrated on the touch-line. At present in all eases where a scrummage is ordered between the twenty-five yards’ line for a breach occurring within ten yards of the touch-line, such scrummage shall take place at a snot ten yards from the touch-line. The New Zealanders propose that the words “ between the twenty-five yards’ lines.” he climinalotl. There seems to lit' no serious objection that can be raised to this proposal. The object, obviously, is to save the undue waste ol time that results from, the formation of tt serum next to the touch-line, where five times out of ten tlie hall is forced to touch, and a struggle follows close in. THE KNOCK-ON. Another proposal by the New Zealanders is as follows: "If a player knocks the ball on and catches it him self before it reaches ground, the player be allowed lo go on." I have set out the proposal as it appeared in the Sydney "Referee.” K iineking-on and t blowing-forward are defined in (lie glossary of terms as' " propelling the ball by the hand or arm in Hie diier lion 111 the opponents' in-gaol.” Al though to (lie popular minds the throwforward and the knock-on are dilferent things, the terms are really synonymous. It is not clear whether the New Zealand proposal is intended to cover hot It, although it seems (bat by the use of the word " knock-on ” they in tend to exclude the " throw-forward.” Whether only one or both are intended to lie included makes no dill'ereiiee to my view of the matter, which is that the proposal should be rejected without best Ration. Wild. SROli; PASSING. Lot us assume that the knock-on. as distinct from the throw-forward, is to he covered by the proposal. The result will he that a player, say a wing three-quarter, who finds that lie is unable to gather th<‘ filial transfer to him from his centre because it is too high or too wide, will he permitted to deliberately till the ball forward over or past his opposing wing of the lull-back, and, if he is able to catch it again, go on with the movement.. Surely the New Zealanders, who are regarded as amongst, if not actually, the most proficient of the world’s exponents ol Rugby, do not intend to permit ibis sort of tiling. The conception that most people have formed of Rugby is that passes should he accurately given and received. What sort of game will it become if two of the essential features are to be regarded as no longer necessary attributes in. the player s repertoire? 'lOll may say that a movement made up of accurate lipping ol the ball over your opponents’ heads and catching it again before it reaches the ground will constitute something worth watching. But will it he Rugby ? Tlie whole essence ol the game will be changed, and we shall have to find some other name for it. because the old school will not he able to recognise it, as Hie Rugby they learnt. Possibly the New Zealanders, in then; desire to prevent the stopping of the game when a player endeavouring to gather the hall, fails to grasp it firmly at the first attempt and cants it forward, have not realised the ultimate result of the proposed change ns indicated above.