BRIGHTER RUGBY

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 40, 9 October 1931, Page 4

BRIGHTER RUGBY

C. G. PORTER'S VIEWS EX-ALL BLACK CAPTAIN IN FAVOUR OF IT CHANGE. • - o ENGLISH MSCUSSIONS. ' * «' t - .. - I At One time a strong advocate for a return to- the old rules of Rugby football, Mi\ 0. G: Porter, ex-captain of the All Blacks and recognised as ofie of New Zealand's. greatest football leaders", is now firmly convinced tbat the amended rules, especially, that regarding kicking into touch, ar e in the best interests of the game.f Mr. Porter returned to Wellington last week from a .trip abroad, and, although much of his time was taken up with business, he was.able to take advantage of opportunities to discuss Rugby matters. Among those with' whom he discussed various -aspects of the game was ,Mr. W. W. Wakefield, a former capta'in of England, who has given a close study to Rugby problems. Mr. Wakefield still held to an opinion published "some time ago that he favoured the inclusion of a wing-forward in a team. He agreed, too, that the 'game must be made attractive. Uniformity, of course, was desirable. However, there was the need for a brighter game. •

Specialists Wanted. "It does not matter whether it is in sport or in business;" said Mr. Porter, "you must have specialists, ahd you must produce the goods to satisfy the public. I have come to : the conclusion that the old rules, to which we in New Zealand have reverted, do not make the game attractive enough. I can see now that they are not going to be the benefit ahticipated, and we must get back to the amended rules — I refer parti cularly to the kick into touch rule prohibiting a kick into touch on the full except from a player's own twenty-five. The old rules tend to close up the game, and the attractiveness from the spectator's point of view is lost. We aim at playing the game fairly and as sportsmen; but 'it often happens that where a team is ahead and the game is entering upon the final stages a policy of kicking to touch is adopted." It was pointed out to Mr. Porter that that would mean a special dispensation and that previous dispensatons'had been withdrawn by the Home authorities, who were bringing in many new alterations to the laws of the game. To this he replied that the New Zealand game as played under the amended rules had its advantages, and was more attractive, and he saw no reason why it should not be adopted again. Australia would no doubt be with New Zealand in taking this course, and he thought South Africa possibly would fall into line later on. So far as the proposed new rules were concerned he had not had an opportunity of studying them closely. He understood, however, that one provided for the ball having to pass the first three feet of the men in each front row of the scrummage. This meant that only two men were allowed to hook, and he claimed that New Zealand, with its 2-3-2 formation, had been vindlcated. He agreed that so far as scrummage formations were concerned uniformity here, too, was desirable, but, as he had stated when away from New Zealand, he would be willing to help in this direction as soon as it was proved to his satisfaction that three men in the front row of a scrummage were better than two. With regard to the play of the forwards, he considered that the "shiner" should be eliminated, and believed that this could- be accomplished even if the game were played under the amended rules. He had stated in Sydney that there may be some people who will think that New Zealand will be forced to adopt a formation providing for three men in the front row, because of the new rule. "I think, however, that I can see a way out for the New Zealand pack," he added. "But I will need to get a scrum down to try out my theories. As for abolishing the wing-forward, well, you cannot so long as he is behind the ball."