RUGBY.

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19887, 16 May 1936, Page 21 (Supplement)

RUGBY.

REFEREES’ RULINGS. TOO MUCH LATITUDE. TIGHTENING UP RUGBY. DISCUSSION AT CONFERENCE. The latitude which was creeping into referees’ rulings on certain laws governing the game of Rugby was the subject of lengthy discussion at the annual conference of the New Zealand Referees’ Conference in New Plymouth yesterday. In moving a resolution that it be an instruction from the conference that referees keep to laws of the game as set down in the rule book and allow no elasticity, Mr J. King, Wellington delegate, and formerly of Taranaki, spoke forcibly against the latitude which was creeping into the referees’ rulings. Rugby, he said, had been once regarded purely as a Saturday afternoon game, but it was now, in the higher grades at least, a highly commercialised entertainment. When the public was dissatisfied with a certain aspect of this entertainment a scapegoat was looked for, and the referees were the men picked upon as responsible for the slowing up of the game. It was not the referees who could brighten the game, but the players. In his opinion 90 per cent, of the players nowadays used their feet only, and were incapable from the knees up. It was not the referee’s whistle that slowed the game up, but the breaches by the players which caused the use of the whistle. The referees were asked to allow too much elasticity in their rulings. So long as they tinkered round and made no definite laws they would have slipshod football. He wanted the rules to be rigid and to be enforced rigidly. Did Not Know Rules. In supporting Mr King’s statement, Mr A. A. Lucas (Auckland) stated that only 10 per cent, of the players in New Zealand to-day knew the rules of the game. If the referees stuck hard and fast to the rules the players would soon become acquainted with them and the standard of football in New Zealand would be considerably higher than it was at present. Mr D. M‘Kenzie, chairman of the executive, said that there was such a

thing in football as Rugby spirit, and this was best observed by allowing the referees to exercise a little latitude and by playing the advantage rule. He agreed with Mr King’s motion, but not with the words which accompanied it. Mr J. H. M'Kenzie (Waikato) supported Mr King’s remark and thought the chairman had placed a wrong interpretation'on those remarks. Mr E. S. Hylton (Welilngton) favoured Mr King’s motion on the basis that it would bring uniformity to the refereeing through New Zealand. Mr J. .E Coogan (King Country) considered it was the duty of the players to know the rules and it should not be left to the referees to instruct the players on the field. He favoured instruction to players on the rules governing the game being given by coaches and trainers. After further discussion the resolution was carried.