A proposal - if I've got the current situation right

[Glyndwr]

Just watched Cardiff Blues v Newport Gwent Dragons.

About 27 mins in, NGD prop is YCd.

A minute or two later, the other NGD prop is YCd.

Next scrum, ref demands front row replacements. NGD have one prop, who comes on replacing a back row, and a hooker who doesn't.

We now have 8 minutes-ish of uncontested scrums.

First question: Do they pack 8 against 6 or 7?

Second question: should the laws demand that in such a situation the numbers in the scrum are equal?


Reason: If not, then the numbers bound in the scrum are out of the game, and it is a benefit to have a second FR sent off.

 

[OB..]

First question: Do they pack 8 against 6 or 7?
Second question: should the laws demand that in such a situation the numbers in the scrum are equal?

1. No.
2. They do - 8 each.

Law 20.1 (f) Number of players: eight. A scrum must have eight players from each team. All eight players must stay bound to the scrum until it ends. Each front row must have three players in it, no more and no less. Two locks must form the second row.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
Exception : When a team is reduced to fewer than fifteen for any reason, then the number of players of each team in the scrum may be similarly reduced. Where a permitted reduction is made by one team, there is no requirement for the other team to make a similar reduction. However, a team must not have fewer than five players in the scrum.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

 

[Glyndwr]

Thanks, OB.

Trying to clarify and systematise for my aging brain, am I correct in thinking that:

when the first prop was carded, a replacement must be brought on at the next scrum, with another player going off pro tem? And that the non-offending team may either reduce to 7, or more likely use the extra man advantage in the scrum?

when the second prop is carded and cannot be replaced, then the scrum goes uncontested and the non-offending team should take two men out of the scrum to have extra backs?

 

[OB..]

Law 3.5 (c) When 19, 20, 21 or 22 players are nominated in a team there must be five players who can play in the front row to ensure that on the first occasion that a replacement hooker is required and, on the first occasion that a replacement prop forward is required, the team can continue to play safely with contested scrums.

So when the first prop is carded, he is replaced at the next scrum by a substitute prop, and another player goes off. If either prop is carded while the first in still off, there is no requirement to have another prop available, so the game might go to uncontested scrums.

If a team has reduced numbers, they may leave players out of the pack, and the opposition may choose to match that if they wish.

 

[Account Deleted]

2. They do - 8 each.

Law 20.1 (f) Number of players: eight. A scrum must have eight players from each team. All eight players must stay bound to the scrum until it ends. Each front row must have three players in it, no more and no less. Two locks must form the second row.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
Exception : When a team is reduced to fewer than fifteen for any reason, then the number of players of each team in the scrum may be similarly reduced. Where a permitted reduction is made by one team, there is no requirement for the other team to make a similar reduction. However, a team must not have fewer than five players in the scrum.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

So answer two is wrong then. The requirement for 8 v 8 is only (as the exception you quote states) is when the sides were both at 15 players and not when the reduction to 14 and then 13 occured.

 

[Glyndwr]

Hi ATTR.

Did you watch the match? Did Blues have the nous to reduce to 6 when it went uncontested? It wasn't something I was watching for at the time.

Does seem to me that a team having a prop YCd might find it to its advantage to have a second one off at the same time.

 

[Davet]

The side which has less than 15 on the pitch may reduce the number in the scrum - and this, potentially can allow them to equaql the number of oppoistion backs.

Note that they will have only the same number in the back-line, not more.

If they do this then the opposition can re-assert there numerical advantage in the back line by reducing their pack, by the same number of players.

Where is the advantage in being 2 men down?

 

[Glyndwr]

Where is the advantage in being 2 men down?

I think that a team whose scrum is under pressure might well prefer to be facing more backs than be constantly shoved backwards.

But I would be interested to know what forwards think of that proposition.

 

[Davet]

It really depends on whether the team with more players prefers to deploy them in the pack, or in the back line.

At the moment they have the choice, they can either equalise the numbers in the scrum (down to 6 each in your scenario) by putting two extra in the backline, giving them an advantage in that department; or not.

Since, in the scenario painted then we are by now at uncontested scrums, then there is no possibility of being shoved back and the sensible course would be for the team with two in the bin to reduce the pack to 6, to have maximum in the backline. If they do this then clearly the team with 15 on the field would be advised to match numbers in the scrum and have two extra players available in the backline.

But it's their choice, and all governed by the Law as she stands - I am struggling to see what change you are proposing.

 

[Account Deleted]

Cardiff had a penalty and opted for a scrum then the news can that there was no second prop on the bench so the game went uncontested. I think had they known before calling the scrum about uncontested they would have gone for the corner and catch and drive.

Here a question: In the above situation would you give the side the optionsagain in view of the lack of a prop and the situatin with U/c scrums?

 

[David J.]

Yes, I would.

 

[Davet]

No reason why they can't change their mind on anything other than a kick at goal.

I would not make a point of saying to them, "do you want to change your minds?", but if they tell me they do, then fine.

 

[David J.]

I normally wouldn't permit a change from a scrum back to a penalty (or any of the myriad of other choices like a re-kick at a failed kick off, etc) , if the choice was made by the proper individual (captain) and I've accepted the choice by signalling the award of a scrum. It slows down the game and is confusing to everyone on the field (spectators too, I suppose, but the game's for the players).

But I'd make an exception since the captain didn't have enough information to make a proper decision.

 

[OB..]

In other words, Cardiff knew that the opposition did not have enough props on the field. Apparently they had already used one so were not required to have another available.

As professionals I would have expected Cardiff to know that and enquire before making their decision. Are the opposition obliged to answer?!?!?

In the local park it would have been different.......

 

[Davet]

OB, do you think that a decision by a captain as to what option they are going to take at a penalty cannot be changed?

Other than after deciding to kick at goal.

 

[OB..]

Davet - it depends. If he indicates that he wants to take a scrum, but then decides to tap and go, I would call it back because he has pulled the opposition out of their defensive positions.

Taking a kick to touch instead of a scrum is not quite the same, but what if the kick falls short?

My criterion would be whether or not the oppositon was disadvantaged by the change.

 

[Davet]

Interesting, no grounds in Law for disallowing the change of mind from scrum to tap&go - but I agree, in terms of game management.

However if the tempo was slower - and especially after it became apparent that scrums were to go uncontested I don't think I would have a problem.

It strikes me as unfair to say that because they are professional players they should know if it's going u/c. After all they may well not know if the earlier change was a sub or a replacement, nor may they know the ins and outs of the opposition subs' bench in detail. After all, we don't expect the professional referee to have all this at his fingertips - that's what the 4th official, complete with paperwork, is for.

 

[OB..]

Interesting, no grounds in Law for disallowing the change of mind from scrum to tap&go - but I agree, in terms of game management.

Unsportsmanlike conduct?

It strikes me as unfair to say that because they are professional players they should know if it's going u/c. After all they may well not know if the earlier change was a sub or a replacement, nor may they know the ins and outs of the opposition subs' bench in detail. After all, we don't expect the professional referee to have all this at his fingertips - that's what the 4th official, complete with paperwork, is for.

If a player is missing, it is surely reasonable to expect them to know it is a prop?

If the prop only declares his unfitness after the scrum has been called, I would certainly think it reasonable to allow the captain to change his mind, but not allow a quick tap and go while everybody is necessarily out of position.

 

[Davet]

If a player is missing, it is surely reasonable to expect them to know it is a prop?

Yes, perfectly.

But it is unreasonable to expect them to know whom he will be replaced by.

Will the player who went off earlier come back? He may if he was substituted; and the opposition may well not know the fine detail. Is there another player who can play prop on the bench? Again the opposition may not know the contents of the bench - even if they checked the programme, that is not necessarily up-to-date as at kick-off.

You are imputing an omniscience in the professional player beyond the point where it is necessarily reasonable.

 

[Account Deleted]

I would agree no tap and go. The chance to do that has come and gone.
But the kick to touch after letting the other team "re group" would be equitable.
I can't quite see why the captain should be aware of the other side's cover for the front row mind.