2016 3.5 The Front Row – Replacements and Substitutions

[JSAK]

I was perusing the 2016 LOTG and noticed some potential issues with Section 3.5 The Front Row – Replacements and Substitutions. One of which is as follows. The 2015 LOTG contained 20 subsection (a-t) under Law 3.5. The 2016 version of Law 3.5 has only 4 (a-d) subsections. A subsection that seems to have been eliminated deals with an exception to Law 3.7: A player sent off for foul play must not be replaced or substituted. For an exception to this Law, refer to Law 3.5. The issue is that the 2016 version of Law 3.5 does not seem to provide an exception, at least not an explicit one. Similar issues appears to exist with Law 3.12 (e) and (f) both of which refer to Law 3.5. I have not yet thoroughly read the 2016 LOTG, so I might be missing something…?

 

[chrismtl]

Just took a look and it's all covered in law 3.6 now. Definitely not well written and someone should change Law 3.7 to adjust accordingly.

 

[JSAK]

So chrismtl, any chance you could direct me the specific subsection of 3.6 that addresses the exception referenced in 3.7?

 

[chrismtl]

Here you go. It's basically what was in Law 3.5 before but is now in Law 3.6 which concerns uncontested scrums, which is the right place to have it since the exceptions are in the law book to prevent uncontested scrums if a front row player gets binned.

[LAWS]3.6 (f) If, as a result of a front row player being temporarily suspended, another player has to be nominated by the team to leave the playing area to enable an available front row player to come on, the nominated player may not return until the period of suspension ends.(g) If, as a result of a front row player being sent off, another player has to be nominated by the team to leave the playing area to enable an available front row player to come on, the nominated player may act as a replacement/substitute.[/LAWS]

 

[JSAK]

Thanks chrismtl. So, the intent of 3.7 (g) is to avoid uncontested scrums if at all possible within the limits of the LOTG. What the subsection is saying is that if a player leaves the pitch to allow a proxy front row to come on (so that contested scrums can continue) the player who left can subsequently serve as either a replacement or substitute as if he had not previously been on the pitch. Correct???

 

[chrismtl]

Basically, if a FR player gets a YC, if there's another FR player that hasn't been replaced (subbed off for non-tactical reasons, aka injury), they can bring that player on at the next scrum to prevent uncontested scrums. If they are able to do so, when the player comes on, another player must leave the field to make sure that the team is still at 14 players.

When you bring the YC'd player back onto the field, you reverse everything and none of it counts as a sub towards the 7 subs a team is allowed to make. At that time, especially if the card is after the 50th minute of play, it's not uncommon for the team to just sub out the binned player and leave the new FR as a sub once the bin time is done (this does count towards the sub limit).

Also, if a team has already made their 7 subs, you can still do what is written above, but when the binned player returns, you must reverse everything to what it was.

 

[crossref]

When playing in England with interchanges, then we can have a situation where we are playing uncontested scrums, with a fit STE player on the touchline, who could come on and restore contested scrums, but cannot as they have run out of interchanges. Ie when introducing interchanges they forgot the intention of this law.. To always have contested scrums if possible

 

[Phil E]

When playing in England with interchanges, then we can have a situation where we are playing uncontested scrums, with a fit STE player on the touchline, who could come on and restore contested scrums, but cannot as they have run out of interchanges. Ie when introducing interchanges they forgot the intention of this law.. To always have contested scrums if possible

I have never had a team run out of interchanges since they were brought in.

 

[Blackberry]

So a substitution brought about by a YC does count towards the interchanges allowance?

 

[crossref]

So a substitution brought about by a YC does count towards the interchanges allowance?

yes - all interchanges, for all purposes, all count.

Phil is correct : in practice the number of interchanges allowed is so generous that you never normally run out. But eventually it will happen, and we'll have a game played out with uncontested scrums, with a fit player on the touchline unable to come on. Then they'll probably tweak the regs.