CAUSED SENSATION

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1033, 25 July 1930, Page 7

CAUSED SENSATION

ALLEGED ROUGH PLAY | IN N.Z. RUGBY SYDNEY CRITICS’ VIEWS Special to TUB SBB WELLINGTON, Thursday. ] Reports of the speech of Dr. Adams, president of the New Zealand Rugby Union, on the subject of the Timaru match, caused a sensation in Sydney. Featured in the Sydney newspapers, , they also led one journel (the “Daily ! Pictorial”) to state that New Zealanders had been accused of savagery before. The English League team of 1928 is stated to have complained bitterly of the “ruthless methods” of New Zealanders, particularly the forwards Mr. S. T. Smith, of Manly, said that the New Zealanders, off the field, were line men, but that on the field they displayed a remarkable fervour as if imbued with the idea that they must win at all costs. The fact that they were representing New Zealand with its glorious football traditions to uphold transformed them into a team of supermen, impervious to fatigue and injury. STANDARD OF REFEREEING In comment upon the criticism of the referee launched by Dr. Adams, two well-known figures in the New South Wales Rugby world were quoted. Mr. 11. Baker, manager of the New South Wales team of 19 25 in New Zealand stated that while play was hard, it was reasonably fair- The refereeing, however, was very bad in some places, notably outlying centres. Mr. T. H. Bosward, who managed the 1921 and 1923 New South Wales teams in the Dominion, said that there was practically no rough play until the final match in Wellington in 1921. He also said that the refereeing was generally not good, with different interpretations in every centre. Commenting on these statements. Mr. T. A. Fletcher, prominent referee, past president of the Wellington Referees’ Association and member of the Management Committee of the Xev* Zealand Rugby Union, said that New Zealand refereeing compared very favourably with the standard in Australia. The practice was not to appoint any referee to outlying districts when there was a big game there, for appointments were made from a list submitted by the various unions to the parent union. The unions were expected to forward a list of names of referees capable of controlling big matches and men whom they would recommend. There was, of course, a certain difference of opinion as to interpretation of some rules, but that was inevitable between any two individuals and by active work and conferences, the’New Zealand Referees’ Association was labouring to attain the of uniformity. Much had been done in recent 3* ears.