FOOTBALL

Hokitika Guardian, 28 May 1930, Page 3

FOOTBALL

THE WING FORWARD

COMMENT ON MR BAXTER’S

REMARKS

AUCKLAND, May 26.

“I think Mi- Baxter milst have forgotten himself.” This remark was made by Mr J. Arneil, president of the Auckland Rugby Union, a man who refereed twice in the Auckland v. British games in 1888, when asked his opinion of the charge of deliberate cheating made by Mr James Baxter, manager of the touring British team, against the New Zealand wing forward. ’. ■

“It is to he hoped that the' views expressed by Mr Baxter are not held by alt the members of bis team,” said Mr Arneil after bis coni merit quoted above. “I am an old wing .forward myself, and in the fifty years I have been connected with the game I do not recollect one instance of a player deliberately setting out to cheat. In calling all wing forwards cheats Mr Baxter is ‘talking through his hat,’ 1 have a hotter opinion of footballers than to believe that they go on to the field deliberately to cheat.” ; Mr Anted said that sometimes a wing forward might offend, 1 but be believed. that the offence was committed only in the heat' of the game and not: with any deliberate idea oi cheating, i In his opinion ah English half-back, often functioned in the same; way as a wing forward by getting round the scrum when he saw His hbokers had : riot got the ball. Particularly' was this noticeable oft the occasion-of the visit of- the 1 -first English team. “Wo were sports eriougn on that occasion not to accuse the Englishmen of unfair tactics,” he said.

“Mr Baxter’s statement is altogether too sweeping.” Mf Arneil Continued. “In calling the wing forward a. cheat ho is accusing some of the most prominent men lit New Zealand, men who played the wing forward game years ago, of being cheats. These oil players are likely to resent the charge, and I think Mr Baxter; was- ill-advised i.to make- ..it. Tossibly-, ho did not intend his - remarks to read exactly as- they- do in print.i I cannot believe thdt lie did, but I think that he ought to modify his statement.”

break: away forw a rdS worse

OFFENDERS,

The view that' Mr Baxter’s remarks should not ,be pakon seri,ofisly. was expressed. by i-Mf- Arthur .Lucas v”), whp, t played' as wing forward with the „N,ew Zealand Army team in the British, Isles, France arid ■ South Africa. ~,'“The. poor old New ■Zealand wing forward; is ho more an obstructionist than any- of the Eug- • lislimeri’s own breakaway (back row) forwards,”, -he ~,,suid. The/,. ' Knglish - fjprm of obstrqpfion,. explained Mr Lucas, consisted sometimes of the breakaway men swinging oitt from the sorurn wjthout actually leaving it, but, it was done with, the object •of obstructing any opposing player -going round ,to collar their half back, and was just as. much obstruction as the tactics adopted , by tdjje New Zen* land wing forward. iVjf, Lucas further said that; he did .not remetnher ever lieiiyj pulled up for deliberate obstruction by any referee ih . iv 1 . . France or i&uth Africa.' The British team, concluded Mr Lucas, should he asked whether ,they were observing every rule in the Rule Book absolutely' and to the letter. The complaints whioh had been made by the visitors, the charges against the wing forward and the questions of leaving the field at half time arid the'keeping of time he characterised as “pin pricking” tactics. Mr F. W. Lucas, who toured England and South Africa with. the. All Black teams in 1924 arid 1928, supported his brother's views. The English. breakaway/ forwards were worse joijenders than the New. Zealand ■ wing forward. So much coittroyersy had been heard' concerning' the game played by the wing forward in New' . Zealand that'referees as a' whole set out deliberately to watch him arid' had no eyes for many others tiring's that went on. During the match ■ l>e--1 tween New Zealand and ’England on the 1924 tour Voyce, one of the English breakaways, was penalised for coming round the scrum and kicking Richardson’s legs from under him in an attempt, to get the ball, which wn« still in trip scrum. Richardson at the time was playing in, the second ro. From the penalty Mark Nicholls 'landed a goal.

NO COMMENT TO MAKE. M> - F. E. Sutherland, referee, declined to make any comment on the charges, while Air' T T Frost, chairman of'the Auckland Rugby Union’s Management Committee said that he ; would make;a reply at a later date. When interviewed regarding Mr Baxter’s decision, -Mr S, E. Wilsonsaid tliat there was nothing in tile i international . rules to preVeiit a team leaving'the field at hell-time. - When the New Zealand team was in England' in 1924' it left the field at .half-time in every match. A SYDNEY CRITIC. /Received this dav at 8.30. a.m. ) SYDNEY, May 28l The football editor of the “Sydney Morning Herald,” declares .fame's Baxter’s criticism, of the New Zealand wing forward was apparently, not. diredted at any individual, hut 1 at the