RGGBY RULES

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10293, 30 May 1919, Page 6

RGGBY RULES

ALTERATION SOUGHT CONTROVERSIAL QUESTION DISCUSSED. IMPORT INT AUCKLAND PROPOSAL L-lli'i-UTED. Nothing is interesting supporters ot rtugby football in New Zealand so much at tho present time as the proposed alterations in tho 'ules of ttie game oi Uugby. The question was rather fully discussed at a meeting or the New Zeuhind uugby Union in January and once again last evening this controversial suoleot was well threshed out. There was a large attendance oi delegatus of the* parent bodv ami the d.seussion disclosed a gicut uitlerenee ot opinion in IVeiv Zealand Ku,;bv ciicito It was explained that in accordance with instruction given at tho January meeting of the union the secretary had written to the English Union asking Hs opinion with regard to the uituiuuuiis ot the rules of the game and also the alterations of the ru.es with regard to professionals. The English union was asked if the proposed alterations would cause tho Nu.v Zealand union to be inei.giblb tot membership, ot tho English union. Cables und letters had been sent, but the English union had not replied at all. AUCKLAND PROPOSAL.

Mr F./J. Oulsen (Auckland; moved as follows: That the words "as from time to time fixcu bv that body" be deleted and tho lollowing substituted in lieu thereof: "But may make such modifications as may be deemed desirable in tho interests of the game."

Mr Ohlsen said that Auckland was desiroua of bettering the game and in view nt the fact that the English Union had ignored them, thev should take the matter in their.own hands and give thiuew rules a trial. No harm could be done bv this and thev could not expect the English union to agree to alterations in tho rules until the alterations had been tested. If the alterations were mode and proved to the advantage of the ganio. thev could then recommend to England their adoption. With regard to tho fivp yards rule, this had never been questioned by the. English union.

Dr. McEvedy (Wellington) strongly opposed the motion. It would be fatal to take such a step in tho dark until England replied to the questions. Alterations in the rules would mean severance, nothing else. It would be fatal to Kugbv to bring about isolation from England.

Mr J. Mcleod (Tnrannkh held that if fhe gover.iors of ltugby football in NonZealand thought alterations were desirable, (hen these alterations should be brought into force. Instead of having a bad effect on Rugby tho improvements would be the means of cementing the Rugby-playing countries. Improvements were required and tho New Zealand Union should not bow to the wishes of the English Union absolutely.,

Dr MeEvedy hastened to explain that he was not against alterations, but he did say .that they should do nothing drastic until replies were received from the English Union. PIEBALD RUGBY.

The opinion was expressed by Mr Wylio (Wellington) that the union should i rocced on constitutional lines. They did not want to be isolated, which "would simply brins into being a form of piebald Rugby. He was not conservative, with' regard to rules, but he did consider that the union should look before it took a leap in the dark. Mr W. Drake (South Taranaki) strongly supported. the motion.

It was urged by Mr Carmine (BuIIer) that the union should not tolerate tny further dilly-dallyins on the part of (he English Union. Professionalism was creeping in in no uncertain manner, and the Rugby Union was courting disaster unless it improved the game and made it more attractive. • There was no doubt there .was room for improvement. "Whv make Rugby a hybrid game?" asked Mr O'Sullivan (Marlborough), vho referred a little ironically to the "league bogey." He thought they would be well advised if they stuck to the "good old game." Probably certain alterations were very desirable, but they should piocced constitutionally and mako any alterations universal. One remedy would be better representation on the Tjnion. If they had that their representations would, he thought, receive every consideration. QUESTION AS TO SEVERANCE. Asked by a delegate if the adoption of the motion would mean severance from the English body, the chairman (Mr H. Harris) said he previously thought not. TTe had since discussed the matter very fully with the Otago people, and ho now thought the proposals would mean severance. As a remedv he suggested that Auckland should withdraw the- motion. They could then go ahead find dfsenss the proposed new ruins, and fur. ward their conclusions to the English Union. The chairman added that severance would certoinlv be absolutely fatal to the trame in New Zealand. Dr Crawford (Otagol appealed on behalf of the soldiers that no alteration'' should be made until the men relurnid. The New Zenlanders had been playing good football in Europe, and it would bn disastrous if New Zealand were cut i,H from international football. If the union proceeded to make, all sorts of alteration* thev would soon have a mongrel game in place of the real Rugby. Mr Bailey (Hawko's Bay) referred to the coming formation of an International Board to control Rugby throughout the world. Ho supported the motion, and said that dolegates should not he hoodwinked by those conservative people who were against any form of alteration.

■ Mr G. Dixon (Wnnganui) considered that if they carried the motion t.hoy would cease to be part of tho English Union. It was only logical to come to the conclusion that if New Zealand altered the rule<! it would automatically sever itself from the English Un'on. He considered that some of the proposed alterations struck at th«> very fundamentals of the same of Rugby. lie pointed out incidentally that it was incorrect to say that Mie five -yards, rulo was introduced without con lent and approval of the English Union. Mr Pownal] (Wansanui) favoured th» suggestion of the chairman to pass on to tho suggested alterations and st.bmit the result to the English Rugby Union. The latter could o.nlv bo mowd apparently with n charge of dynamite and what Neiv Zealand should do was to advise England that they intoni'd to plav th» new rules until they heard something definite. Tlie speaker strongly favoured the Interna, tional Board. SHOULD TAKE A. CHANCE. Mr Wilson (Canterbury) strongly favoured the Auckland motion. Canterbury would greatly regret severance but thev should be prepared to tako a chance. Even if severance did eoui" about it might hurrv on the formntioof tho proposed International Board. H" oould not see nnv wh« New Ken. 'and should bo dfctated to altogether by the Enclish Union Mr Fache (Otngo) said that if the adoption of tho alterations m«ant severance from he English Union. Otngo would net support them. He warned delegates to consider that if thev agreed to drastic alterations thev would find themselves nlnying n game that was nothing better than professionalism. The speaker referred to tho movement some

years ago in favour of paying players and asked did uiev want that e.ement to creep in again r

Voices: No. Mr lUcPnail obiected to Mr Faches ■'insinuations'' with regaid to professionalism. If tiie delegates oi tho unions favouring 'lie motion had come with an ulterior object in view they could have gone straigiu over to the League. Mr Facile explained that he was oi opinion that tho delegates had come witn tbo honest intention of altering and improving tha game. He intended no insinuation. In the course of his reply Mr Unison contended tnat Mr Dixon and Dr MeEvedy had said that the adoption of his motion would mean severance, but tney had not proved their insertion. l)r MeEvedy:- Constitution;-,! rules. Mr Ohlson said- he conoid.'ied that the New Zealand Union was intelligent enough to make alterations to improve the game. Auckland did not want professionalism, and would not have it, but they held that they were quite entitled to improve the game. He condemned the procrastination o£ the English Union in the matter, and wont on to say that he had been told by soldiers who have returned from Europe that England was at present playing a ■different game to that played in New Zealand. LOST B"S FOUR VOTES. On the motion being put it was defeated by 24 votes to 20. Mr Ohlson agreed to drop the other motions dealing with the union rules. At this juncture Mr Ohlson suggested that tho various unions in New Zealand should give the proposed new rules a trial in inter-club and inter-union football. The chairman referred to the rulo which states that before new rules can be put into force the approval of the English Union must be obtained. Mr Dixon said the committee was appointed to carry out the constitution. anYl would have to do so. Mr McLeod remarked that tho agitation for alterations in the rules came from the plavers, many of whom were returned soldiers. If the- union stuck strictly to the bald meaning of the rules it would only create antagonism omonsrst tho players themselves. It was | intended to play the new rules in Taranaki. NEW EULES DISCUSSED. Further discussion- ensued on the proposed new rules, which provide for tho abolition of the wing-forward; absolute free-kicks and kicks at goal from penalties and tries; referee to put the ball into the scrum; modification of the law governing kicking into touch, otherwise than from a kick-off or drop-out already provided for; advantage rule to apply to line-out pay. AMENDED EULES ADOPTED. ' There was some discussion in reference to the proposed abolition of the wing rorward. Several speakers considered that there was no necessity for the rule as it was optional whether a wing forward should be included or not. Dr .UcEvedy said that the rule simply brought' in the imaginary line behind tue scrum, which wa* nothing less i«m. Northern Union. Other speakers con tended that the rule was a distinct advantage to the game. ' Tho motion for the adoption of the vule was carried by 23 to at. The rule governing absolute free kicks and kicks at goal from penalties and tries was lost on the casting vote of the chairman.

The following new rules were carried:The referee. is to put the ball into the «!i-um on all occasions; if a player throws the ball out so as not to alight at right anJcles to the touch line, or if the ball is

"knocked-on" and the opposing side gain tho advantage, in either case, from imi' mediate succeeding play, the game goes on. The following proposed rule was lost by 29 votes to 15: —lf the ball drops directly into touch from a kick, except in tho case of a penalty kick, and except ho be within his own "twenty-five," it shall be brought back, and a "line-out" formed from touch at a point opposite tho place where tho player was at the time he kicked the ball.

At this stage Mr Ohlson proposed e mution to the effect that the delegates be asked to bring before their unions Vhb e.mendme.nts agreed upon, with a view to having them adopted in the local fixtures.

This was seconded by Mr Matheson (Auckland/. The chairman explained that the amended rules would bo forwarded to the English Union for approval or otherwise. -Meanwhile the game would be played under the new rules pending the decision of the English Union Discussion became rather animated on the nuestion of constitution, and Mr Drake (South Canterbury) moved to the effect that the new rules be not put into effect until the approval of the English Union is received This was seconded 'by Mr Thompson (Bay of Plenty), but was lost by 24 votes to 19., Mr Lynsky then moved. and Mr Dixon (Wanganui) seconded that the new rules be not put into opcrauo; till 1920.

The amendment was lost, and the n tion carried on the voices.