[Law] Changes to Uncontested Scrum Law

[Phil E]

Gosh , that deserves a new thread on its own

Where can we find the Dec 2017 Law Application Guideline referred to ?

On the World Rugby 2017 Law Application Guidelines page maybe?

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9

 

[L'irlandais]

Guideline December 2017 - Uncontested scrums
[LAWS]LAW AMENDMENT TRIAL
(h) Uncontested scrums as a result of a sending off, temporary suspension or injury must be played with eight players per side.[/LAWS]

Well the OP did bring up the Wales v Georgia incident, which in turn was mentioned by WR as part of their response to the Clarification 1 2018:

...An example of manipulation of the laws is the circumstances of the Wales v Georgia during the 2017 Autumn Internationals.
7. There is a clear precedent for differential sanctions for 23 man squads e.g 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 23.16 just as there are differential laws for elite games using the HIA process.

So not strictly off topic, more like vast subject.

Remind anyone of France v Wales incident?
Warren Gatland/

Wales dumbfounded at decision to clear France over Paris substitution furore

 

[pedr]

I seem to recall Raynal was pretty sure an additional Welsh player should have left the field in the Georgia game, and at some point in the confusion was either convinced otherwise or stopped trying to enforce that decision. Seems he was correct, or would have been if Georgia had stuck with the scrum choice even if uncontested.

 

[crossref]

What an interestingly worded request, and response. No love lost between the RFU and WR it would seem.

 

[Rich_NL]

As I recall it was a question on the WR Laws site, and I didn't understand the answer (that an additional player has to leave). Following perusal of the laws I thought the quiz had it wrong and meant to ask here.

 

[L'irlandais]

The parting shot from WR was

Finally in terms of your concern about a World Cup Final being decided by the enactment of this LAG*. A greater concern for us would be if a World Cup Final was decided by tactical manipulation of the front row replacement and Uncontested scrum laws.

Which is understandable, if you think that each year now one or other Union’s National side will try to subvert the LotG, with some tactical manipulation, often ignoring player saftey.

*Law Application Guideline (LAG)

 

[Jolly Roger]

Last weekend both teams had 18 players with 4 front row nominated players. LH prop was injured after 10 mins and was replaced by the only front row replacement who was a hooker and unable to play prop. We therefore had to go to uncontested scrums. I was under pressure at this point to recall the precise laws affecting the situation but ruled that because only 18 players were nominated and as the team could replace a FR player on the first occasion that a FR player was injured therefore they could make the replacement and continued as 15v15.

On checking LotG subsequently I noted that the injured player cannot be replaced if the team nominates a 23 player squad but then cannot support contested scrums. I could find no mention of this Law applying when the squad is less than 23.

Is this right?

It was all a bit of a legal technicality to assess in the middle of the game. Laws, law amendments, Law Variations, law trials, Law Clarrifications, and competition rules make for a hell of a lot of reading during the week and a lot of demand on memory during the game.

 

[crossref]

The regs are different in every competition. You need to look up the regulations
Or tell us the competition this was and we will look up the regulations for you .. and explain why you are wrong

 

[Phil E]

Generally speaking (unless local regs say otherwise) if the game goes uncontested then the team that caused it will be down one player.

So prop YC, no replacements, uncontested and 15v14 until the card is over, then back to 15v15 and contested.

Prop goes off injured (no replacements) causing uncontested it will be 15v14 and uncontested for the rest of the game.

The bit about having to have a replacement front row at the first (or subsequent) time of asking does not affect this. That is only to determine if the result stands or not. All the ref needs to do is note on the result card the circumstances and then leave it to the competition people to sort out.

The WR clarification is for top level only (23 players), so shouldn't affect most of us on here.

 

[crossref]

Are you sure about it not applying ?
The RFU say, surely this idea of dropping to 13 is not what the Law Book says, are you sure you want to introduce something different for the 23 man game ?

and WR have replied that yes, actually, it is exactly what the Law Book says.

So it seems to me it does apply , whenever we are playing man off

 

[Phil E]

Are you sure about it not applying ?
The RFU say, surely this idea of dropping to 13 is not what the Law Book says, are you sure you want to introduce something different for the 23 man game ?

and WR have replied that yes, actually, it is exactly what the Law Book says.

So it seems to me it does apply , whenever we are playing man off

But only if there is a 23 man squad. That is what WR are saying.

23 man squad two have to come off.
Less than 23 man squad, only one comes off.

 

[crossref]

(scratches head)
I don't think that is what they are saying.

I think they are saying : read Law 3 : in any game where man off is played it , that's how it works and two men go off

When man off first came in a lot of people understood the Law that way , and I remember a cascading communication in RFU land saying , no , it's only one man off. But I think WR are saying that was wrong

 

[Phil E]

That is exactly what they are saying. They are saying the LAG from December is correct.

The LAG is entitled Uncontested scrums for matches that involve 23 players in a squad

The RFU say "this can't be right becasue we would then have different regulations for different levels of the game."

To which WR reply "There is a clear precedent for differential sanctions for 23 man squads e.g 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 23.16 just as there are differential laws for elite games using the HIA process."

Then the clarification specifically mentions a 23 man squad, not just any squad size.

Request

We have noted the recent Law Application Guideline that, in summary, stated that, in 23-member squads, when a team is unable to contest the scrum due to a player being suspended (either temporarily or permanently) then the team will be reduced by two players

Clarification of the designated members of the Rugby Committee

Your original assumption that in 23 man squads, when a team is unable to contest the scrum due to a player being suspended (either temporarily or permanently) ((and the other specialist prop(s) are injured/ carded)) then the team will be reduced by two players

 

[crossref]

It seems to me that
- the LAG said that in the 23 man game, it's two off.
- it was pretty clear that that applied only to the 23 man game
- the RFU said : hang on, how can there be two off? The Law says only one goes off, two of is not supported by the Law
- in the clarification WR said it is supported by Law

WR DIDN'T say : you're right, the Law says one off, but for the 23 man game it's two off

So a can of worms was prised slightly open.

Anyway, no doubt the RFU will cascade something soon, and I expect that will indeed say as you were : one off..