CONTROL OF RUGBY.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 February 1922, Page 5

CONTROL OF RUGBY.

RULES OF THE GAME. IMPERIAL BOARD WANTED. THE POSITION EXPLAINED. In yesterday’s cables appeared a suggestion from “Touch -Judge,” a writer in London Sporting Life, that unless the English Rugby Union desire Rugby to become insular and of unabsorbing interest in all countries, they must immediately summon a conference of representatives of the United Kingdom, Australzi, New Zealand and South Africa, at which an international board of control should be formed to revise the laws and agree unanimously how the game is to be played and conducted. This cable was referred to the president of the New Zealand Rugby Union (Mr. J. McLeod) yesterday by a News representative and the history of the movement on the part of New Zealand to have a better system of control introduced was explained. This question of a more comprehensive government of Rugby football has been seriously considered by the New Zealand Rugby Union for the pa-st three or four years, said Mr. McLeod, and in 1919 a conference, representative of thq New South Wales, Queensland, and New Zealand Rugby Unions, jwas held at Sydney, at which it was recommended (1) that an international board of control should be established; (2) the governing 'body of Rugby in each country where the game is played should be eligible for affiliation; and (3) that each affiliated body should have representation thereon. The objects of the board should be (a) uniform international government, (b) uniformity of laws and rulings, (c) the ’betterment of the game by the exchange of international tours, or by any other means considered desirable. At the same conference other suggestions for the improvement of the game were adopted and submitted to the English Rugby Union. A few of the amended rules were subsequently agreed to by that body, but no advance was made in securing any change in the methods of governments. NEW ZEALAND’S VIEWS.

The main reason animating New Zealand and Australia in advocating a change in international government is that only England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales have had representation on the board and it has always been felt that any suggestions from the Antipodes did not get that consideration that they were entitled to. The refusal, therefore, of the English Rugby Union to sanction particularly the amended “kicking into touch” rule brought the whole question into prominence last season and -a letter from the president and secretary of the New Zealand Rugby Union setting out in detail the whole question as it affected New Zealand was sent to the president of the English Rugby Union in June, 1 921. The main request, so far as the laws of the game were conerned, was that the English Rugby Union should confirm New Zealand’s action in granting dispensation to the Auckland Rugby Union to play certain modifications, and, further, .that the English Rugby Union give New Zealand’s suggestions for modifications of certain laws of the game the most careful and thoughtful consideration for world-wide adoption, and, if unable to accept the suggestion for world-wide adoption, to allow New Zealand and Australia to include them for play in their respective countries, at least till such time as the New Zealand suggestions could be considered fully bv a conference of representatives of all Rugby players in the world. The desirability of convening such a conference at an early date was urged upon the English Rugby Union with a view «o the consideration of such proposals for amendment as New Zealand had put forward, and any others that may be put forward by other bodies. In conclusion, the president of the New Zeland Rugby Union expressed New Zealand’s strong desire to have unanimity, not only of rules, but also of rulings, and this could only be assured by such a conference being held.

IMPERIAL BOARD SUGGESTED. The annual meeting of the English Rugby Union was held on October 4, 1921, and Mr. Cecil Wray (the New Zealand representative in London) informed the New Zealand Rugby Union that Mr. x'reston (the president of the E.R.U.) had said that the executive committee had already given the matter their consideration and had come to the conclusion to recommend the E.R.U. to give the New Zealand and New South Wales Rugby Unions power to sanction the modified “kick into touch” rule being played. This was subsequently carried into effect. Meantime advantage was taken of the presence of the South African and New South Wales footballers in New Zealand last September to hold a conference on various matters affecting Rugby, the main question discussed being that of a board of control. The New South Wales view was that the control should be international, the New Zealand viewpoint that control should be Imperial. Ultimately it was agreed “that the delegates from New South Wales and New Zealand in conference agree to recommend to their respective unions for submission to the English Rugby Union that an Imperial board of control be established; the governing bodies of Rugby in Great Britain and the British Dominions where the game is played shall be eligible for affiliation; and that each affiliated body shall have thereon. The objects of the board shall 'be (a) the uniform government of Rugby football; (b) uniformity of laws and rulings; (e) that the exchange of international tours or any other means considered desirable be undertaken for the bet,ter encouragement of the game. The delegate from South Africa agreed to submit this resolution to his- board for consideration and recommended the proposal that representation on the present international board be given to New Zealand, New South Wales, and Africa. GOOD SUPPORT EXPECTED. That proposal will no doubt receive full consideration at the next meeting of the E.R.U., said Mr. McLeod. That is where the proposal now stands, and it was confidently believed by the football governors in New Zealand who are in touch with the ’E.R.U. that the proposal will meet with a gool deal of support. While New Zealand and I Australia have become more or less impatient with the apparent tardiness ot I the E.R.U. in dealing with overseas , suggestions, credit must be given that in at least one case they did treat the (>hple matter broadly and, in granting

the dispensation asked for, they undoubtedly went to the very extr ®“ e . their own powers in giving an affiliated union permission to play a rule which is not a law of the game. It is only fair to mention this, Mr. McLeod said, to counter-balance any feeling m New Zealand that the E.R.U. is an ultraconservative body. « xu At the last annual meeting of tne E R.U., Dr. L. G. Brown, the New South Wales representative in London, was unanimously elected as a member of the laws sub-committee of the E.R.U. The importance of this could hardly be over-estimated in enabling any cases for amendment to be brought before this important committee. Mr. McLeod made it quite clear that the sole aim of the move for better and more representative control was not eo that amended rules, such as kicking into touch, could be added. As far a« New Zealand was concerned, we were quite prepared to abide by the decision of G.c majority if the board of control was n representative one. In concluding. Mr. MeLeod expressed a hope that the cabled remarks of "Touch Judge," evidently a writer or repute, would help to bring about the better control sought and provide lor uniformity of rules, a state of thmge which New Zealand had desired for eo iong.