And they expect us to get it right!

[TheBFG]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/29701910

Cornish Pirates are to seek legal advice after being docked the seven points from their first British & Irish Cup match with Bedford for breaching rules on replacing injured forwards.

Pirates won the game 35-34 after fly-half Bertie Hopkin scored a late try.

But Hopkin came on to replace injured prop Tyler Gendell, having already replaced two others in the front row.

The game went to uncontested scrums but Hopkin stayed on, when rules state Pirates should have played with 14 men.

A RFU disciplinary panel found that Pirates had broken the rules and docked them all the points they won from the match.

How do they expect us to get it right when it can't be got right at an "international" level :shrug: and I'm guessing there was a team of 4?

 

[crossref]

I wonder what the British and Irish Cup regulaltions say, exactly, and if it's possible to find them

 

[TheBFG]

I know hey exist as an AR rang me a little while ago asking about the uncontested issue as he knew he'd be getting a gig soon as they were putting TO4 on the matches and he didn't want to be caught out......!

apparently it's 9.4 of the regs, if I can work out how to get it off my phone i'll post it here!

here you go......

If on any occasion where uncontested scrums are ordered by the referee as a result of there being no suitably trained and experienced front row replacement for any reason (which includes injury, temporary blood injury, temporary exclusion (i.e. following a yellow card) or permanent exclusion (i.e. following a sending off)), the team concerned shall not be entitled to replace the player whose departure caused the uncontested scrums. On return to the field of play of the front row player who has been temporarily excluded or injured the Match shall continue with contested scrums.

How about that for a short, punchy FB message! This is 9.4 from the B&U cup regs - in the scenario we spoke about, this means that the teams stays at 13, regardless of where the replacement prop leaves the pitch due to injury, red card, or yellow card.

 

[Phil E]

This is the best bit........................................

"Whilst the panel accepted that the match officials should have noted the extra man on the pitch, or did not realise Pirates should have only had 14 men present, this does not change the fact that Pirates are ultimately responsible for compliance with regulations and for the breach of those regulations.

So ultimately its not the referees responsibility :biggrin:

 

[Simon Thomas]

It is under RFU juristiction so the usual non-replacement / "man off" regulation applies when going to uncontested scrum due to a FR injury.

Bit of a concern that the match officials got it wrong, but I can only imagine the shouting and arguments on the touchline with #4 etc.

Are Cormish Pirates on the secret email list ? Perhaps we should send them a copy of the FR Logic Tree ?

 

[Simon Thomas]

This is the best bit........................................



So ultimately its not the referees responsibility :biggrin:

I suggest we all print that out and keep it in the kit bag !

Compliance of the numbers of players on pitch, numbers of replacements, FR replacements, number of substitution interchanges, etc is responsibility of the teams NOT the match officials.

 

[crossref]

question :
assuming we are playing interchanges
- is it legal during a game for a team to take off a prop and bring on a non STE player.
- and then at the next scrum either making a further substitution to bring on an STE player, or (if they can't do that) taking the non-STE player off the pitch again to comply with man-off.

It doesn't seem in the spirit, but it does seem legal.

 

[TheBFG]

I guess they could but it would be a waste of interchanges which could come back and bite them in the arse?

That said on Saturday it was 8mins 30secs into my game before we had the first scrum, so yes they could have started with a team of BR players and just waited until a prop was needed, but like you said, not in the spirit of the game.

At the end of the day there's a number of things sides could get away with, but it's just not done :shrug:

 

[crossref]

Toward the end of the game (which is when you are likely to run out of STE players anyway) lack of interchanges is rarely a problem (the rules are pretty generous on number of interchanges)

This Exeter incident happened in the last 8 minutes, and they probably had loads of interchanges left.

Reading the various reports it seems to me that
- (as above) it was OK for Hopkin to come on to the pitch, as there was no scrum happening

- the bite came when there was a scrum: at that point he (or someone else) should have left the field (so it's a ref issue, not a TO4 issue, as the TO4 were correct to let him on)

- i can't work out whether he scored his try before or after the next scrum, when they went uncontested. If it was before then it was OK

 

[Browner]

I don't think we've heard the last of this ......

Was it the fact that he scored?, or was on the pitch ?.......... Or participated in the move that led to the try ?

What happens if someone made a try saving tackle in another match ...... does a side get the TRY awarded post match?

Can of worms this .....

 

[TheBFG]

I don't think we've heard the last of this ......

Was it the fact that he scored?, or was on the pitch ?.......... Or participated in the move that led to the try ?

What happens if someone made a try saving tackle in another match ...... does a side get the TRY awarded post match?

Can of worms this .....

good job the posts didn't blow down, god knows what would have happened then!

 

[Simon Thomas]

Just had the email word from on high at Group level to all referees, MOs and Ref Coaches reminding them of the man off uncontested scrums regs, and do NOT let it happen in a SWG League match.

Now cascading out to the four Societies in my Southern Federation, and they will cascade out to their memberships.

The email from Group mentions a similar occurrence at a L 7 League match a few weeks ago, which the SW Comps Committee has ordered to be replayed.

 

[Browner]

Just had the email word from on high at Group level to all referees, MOs and Ref Coaches reminding them of the man off uncontested scrums regs, and do NOT let it happen in a SWG League match.

Now cascading out to the four Societies in my Southern Federation, and they will cascade out to their memberships.

The email from Group mentions a similar occurrence at a L 7 League match a few weeks ago, which the SW Comps Committee has ordered to be replayed.

I'm amazed, this subject must surely be too complicated, otherwise why are good officials not adhering to regs?. See other threads on this subject!!

 

[Taff]

I'm amazed, this subject must surely be too complicated, otherwise why are good officials not adhering to regs?. See other threads on this subject!!

If you go to the IRB website and look at the Clarification section, there are more Clarifications sought regarding substitutes / FR players than most other laws combined.

 

[crossref]

Too much cascading, not enough clear procedure on websites.

 

[TheBFG]

I've just heard that one of the officials from the OP is going to be at our society meeting tomorrow night :wink: So maybe we'll get to the bottom of it then? That said, I bet it's not the last we'll hear of it!

 

[crossref]

Just had the email word from on high at Group level to all referees, MOs and Ref Coaches reminding them of the man off uncontested scrums regs, and do NOT let it happen in a SWG League match.
.

did your email cover the scenario where
- a teams is ALREADY at 14 players but playing contested scrums in the normal way (let's say the #15 was :norc
- and then later they run out of STE players and have to go uncontested.

That scenario seems pretty clear to me (they now have 13 players) but I know it's still very controversial when discussed, and many people are of the view that man-off doesn't apply and they stay at 14.

sooner or later it will happen in a real game.

 

[Camquin]

Worthing vs Chinnor apparently went uncontested after Worthing interchanged their prop rwith a back ather than bring him back after a yellow card. Match stats here

I am not sure if any of the front row players were injured or just taking rests as I was not there, so I am not sure if they could bring another prop back on.

I am not sure how man off applies with interchanges. I assume it only applies to the first two front row interchanges, but note 16 now says even if the team complies, the committee can take action. So I guess we shall see if anything happens.

Camquin

 

[B52 REF]

simon - cpoukld u possibly wing me that email at my hotmail ta.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Will have a look in morning as consumed a very cheeky Malbec and can't focus very well.