Totally different systems. You are comparing apples and oranges, there is no correlation.
yes, different systems - same flaw.
Totally different systems. You are comparing apples and oranges, there is no correlation.
they had made seven interchanges already. they announced gold prop was injured so he had to go off, and they will bring a substituted gold prop back on the pitch.
Sorry, perhaps I'm being thick and it needs spelling out in words of no more than 2 syllables, but what were they up to exactly? I can't see what they were gaining; they suggest taking an injured prop off and bring a substituted prop back on.Or perhaps Rolland knew what they were up to and was cute enough to not let them get away with it.
Or perhaps Rolland knew what they were up to and was cute enough to not let them get away with it.
Right or Wrong, I'm quite glad he did do it, because it will make the Aussies think a bit before trying it this week in Argentina.
no one wants that situation to happen.
Difficult, because it involves intimate knowledge of the numebrs on the abcks of all Gold replacements (and indeed players, with several out of position - for example, Berrick Barnes was playing 15 instead of his usual 10/12, and Curtley Beale was playing 10 instead of his usual 15).Can I make a friendly suggestion please gents? When it comes to technical questions like this one, can we please use Green 1 or Green 4, or Gold 3 etc rather than using the players names? I don't know (I suspect most others don't either) the names of all the Australian and South African FRs, and frankly if using G1, G3 etc I don't need to know. Stick their names in as well as Green 1 or Gold 3 if you feel it's important, but I for one will be frantically scribbling "Gold 1 - off tactical" etc, because the names mean nothing to me.
Now, using the above suggestion can someone please summarise the problem .... because I'm lost? :biggrin:
Incorrect as to the red bit. Gold 16 (faingaa - a hooker) and Gold 17 (Slipper - a prop) were FR trained replacements. The sequence as regards the FR was:they had made seven interchanges already
- they announced gold prop was injured so he had to go off, and they will bring a substituted gold prop back on the pitch
- rolland said 'aha no, you can't you have made seven interchanges already'
- they said 'that's not how how it works, is it?'
- rolland said 'oh yes, it is'
- they said 'really? OK in which case he's not injured after all, and he can play on'
- rolland said 'aha, got you, you said he was injured'
Curses.
It can be said because it is not at all clear that the iRB statement is remotely accurate, or indeed relevant. It says:Not sure how you can say this when iRB had announced that AR,ably assisted by his team, was wrong in the first instance by denying the replacement ..as per http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediaz...id=2063781.html#irb+statement+match+officials
It was ARs stuff up that the team manager had to try something to keep the integrity of the game with 15 on the field by declaring NPA 'uninjured' when wrongly denied a lawful replacement.
If they were within the bounds of the law why were they perceived to be 'trying something' .
OK, but if they substitute a player, then their best starting player will be off the pitch. I can see the logic of resting him if he's blowing out of his arse .... but (assuming he was a tactical substitution) to get him back on, the player who went on instead of him would either have to be YCd, RCd, injured or a have a "bleeding or open wound". The first two obviously are not recommended, the 4th can't be guaranteed (and after Bloodgate, there's holy hell to pay if you try and fake it) which leaves just the injury option. After Bloodgate, wasn't there a ruling that players going off injured at international level, had to be confirmed as injured by an independent doctor?they get an extra replacement and bring on a rested prop - and presumably could do so further, effectively having 9 replacement events ...
OK. Nos 1,2 and 3 are STE. We just need to know which ones on the bench were the STE subs, regardless of which number they had on.Difficult, because it involves intimate knowledge of the numebrs on the abcks of all Gold replacements (and indeed players, with several out of position - for example, Berrick Barnes was playing 15 instead of his usual 10/12, and Curtley Beale was playing 10 instead of his usual 15).
One substitution and 1 replacement surely. They've still got 1 tactical FR substitution left available to them if they want it. The lawbook clearly allows 7 substitutions (defined as tactical) and doesn't say 7 "interchanges" which I assume includes injuries.... Incorrect as to the red bit. Gold 16 (faingaa - a hooker) and Gold 17 (Slipper - a prop) were FR trained replacements. The sequence as regards the FR was:
31st minute: Gold 3 off; Gold 17 on. (Tactical) - So that's 1 substitution
67th minute: Gold 1 off; Gold 3 returns (Injury) - So that's 1 replacement
These appear to be the two FR substitutions allowed by law 3.4. Alternatively, it may be one substitution, one replacement. This is of crucial importance.
Deans, Cooper & Burns - the enemy within.
View attachment 2401
Therefore, Australia had one permitted technical substitution available.
We need to deconstruct this to understand its meaning.
Oh I don't know. I understood the last sentence quite well.
You ask why they were preceived to "trying something". Answer: because when Faingaa was not permitted to come on to replace the allegedly "injured" Gold 2, that same player attempted to come back on! Clearly not so badly hurt then :chin:
The lawbook clearly allows 7 substitutions (defined as tactical) and doesn't say 7 "interchanges" which I assume includes injuries.
The law makes a distinction between a replacement (for injury) and a substitution (for tactical reasons). This is not applied consistently throughout the law. The two terms tend to be used interchangeably
(quoted purely for the reference - too long to repeat).[...]
It's all very much less than clear to me.
as sarefs observe
The law makes a distinction between a replacement (for injury) and a substitution (for tactical reasons). This is not applied consistently throughout the law. The two terms tend to be used interchangeably
quite.