LAWS OF RUGBY

Hokitika Guardian, 19 March 1927, Page 1

LAWS OF RUGBY

RECENT CONFERENCE. POINTS RAISED BY NEW ZEALAND. WELLINGTON, March 17. first-hand information of the doings at the Imperial Rugby Conference held recently in London is supplied by Mr H. Harris, of the Otago Rugby Union, who was sent- by the New Zealand Rugby Union to represent the Dominioi at the conference. It is the opinion of the New Zealand delegate that some of the amendments to the Laws of the Game, as suggested by New Zealand, inlay become law, as the conference recommended several proposals to the favourable consideration of the International Board, These included alterations to the rules relating to obstruction and off-side play, as well !a suggestion that the value of the ■‘mark” he reduced. The kick-into-touch rule, as played in New Zealand, appealed to a majority of the delegates at the conference, and it is not unlikely, in Mr Harris’s opinion, that the International Board may introduce this rule. > -Mr Harris reports that the conference was attended by delegates representing the English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh. South African, New South Wales and New Zealand Rugby Unions. Sir G. Rowland Hill was in the chair. Remits regarding alterations to the Laws of the Game were submitted bv the New South Wales and New Zealand Unions, and were discussed at length. The remits, together with the opinion of the conference thereon, are as follows:

Advantage Rule.—“ That the advantage rule be applied to all phases of the game.”—This did not receive a very sympathetic hearing from the conference, the majority of those present being against applying the. advantage rule to the kick-off or tlie drop-out. Fair Catch or Mark.—“ That the New Zealand rule re the claiming of marks be made universal (i.e., that a player can claim a fair catch by calling out- “mark,” the heel mark not being compulsory), but that no player be allowed to claim a mark outside his own twenty-five.”—This proposal was discussed at some

length, and while several members were in favour of the proposal, tlie majority were against it. Mr Harris adds: “In connection with this, I may state that some referees in Franco and England allow a mark for a fair catch on a verbal claim being made.” Off-side.—“ That when a player mishandles the ball, off-side players behind him, shall not be thereby put on-side.”-—lt was practically admitted by the conference that tlie present off-side rule required amending, and it was decided to refer the matter to the International Board for consideration.

Line-out.—“ That the advantage rule be applied to all phases of the line-out, including when the ball does not alight at right angles to the touchline; that any player who deliberately prevents the ball from going in five yards be penalised by a free-kick.” The first portion of the suggested alteration has already been dealt with under the first remit. Regarding the suggestion that a freekick be given against the side preventing the ball from being thrown in live yards, it was held by the conference that the referee had power under the rule dealing with “waste of time” to aw lard a free-kick for the offence.

Replacements—“ That injured players may he replaced up to half-time, provided that the consent of the opposing captain is obtained.”—ln view of the strong opposition to this remit at the- conference, there does not appear to lie fcnv chance at present of the suggestion being adopted. Tackle.—“ That Section (p) of Rule 1] he deleted ; that clause (b) and (c) of Rule 6 be deleted, and a player be allowed to play the ball with hand or foot offer it has been put down after a tackle.”—The conference was against making any alteration, contending that the matter was one for the referee. Mr Harris tidds:

“Referees in France and England allow players too much latitude in connection with tliis rule. . . In a circular letter to referees a few years ago the International Boiurd urged referees to penalise players not parting with the ball immediately on being tackled.” Scrummage.—“ That all scrummages be not less than ten yUrds from the touchline.”—Tlie majority of those present at the conference were in favour of this being adopted, and it was referred to the International Board for consideration.

Mark.—“ That no player lie allowed to claim a mark outside his own twenty-live; that no goal he allowed from a mark, or that a goal from a mark count two points.”—There was a long discussion on this remit, and it seemed to Mr Harris that the majority of the conference delegates were in favour of an alteration. No vote, of course, was taken but it- was understood that the International Board would consider the matter.

Knock-on.—“ That if a player knocks the ball on and recovers it in the same stride before it touches the ground, the referee shall not blow for a knock-on.”—Strong opposition was shown to this proposal. It was felt that it would Tie difficult for a referee to judge what “the same stride” mefent, and that it would also be encouraging slovenly handling. K i ck i n g- i nto-Touch. —“When tlie ball pitches in touch from a kick, other than a penalty kick, from beyond twenty-five yards of the kick-

er’s goal-line, the opposite side shall bring it out as in (a) iat a spot opposite the spot where the kicker was when he kicked the ball, or (b) by a scrummage ten yards in from the touehline and opposite the spot where the kicker was when he kicked the ball.”—From the opinions expressed upon this proposal, it seemed to .Mr Harris tbit a majority of the delegates favoured it. There was a possibility of the International Board introducing the rule. Obstruction.-—'That a player who pushes an opponent over as he is bending down to pick up the ball should be penalised for obstruction.” —Opinion at the conference seemed to be generally in favour of this amendment, and the International Board is to be asked t-o consider it with r. view to amending the rule in the direction indicated.