EDINBURGH -v- SCARLETS

[beckett50]

Not sure if anyone else saw this? Watching the game and the Dragons have 2 LH props YC due to scrum infringements, virtually within 2 minutes of each other! The referee Marius Mitrea - at the next scrum - tells the players uncontested scrums as one would. He then goes on to explain that he needs the Dragons to substitute a player (they are down to 13 players) as they must have a full complement of experienced front row players?!:wtf: Can anyone advise from where this ruling comes, or is it unique to the Pro12?

Sorry typo regarding teams in the title

 

[Pegleg]

Two points:

1; It is in the law book / clarifications.

2: The "scarlets" are not playing.

 

[Taff]

I was watching it.

My understanding is that if there's an STE FR player on the bench, then they have to come on even if it's uncontested scrums. Perhaps I'm being too hard on Matreas, but the impression I got was that he was asked / reminded to bring on the FR player by an AR or TMO.

The other incident in the same match was a kick by Blue which was touched in flight by Black (the Ref even shouted "Touch") but he still gave Black the Mark.

Dragons can't complain; their indiscipline let them down badly.

.. Sorry typo regarding teams in the title

If you edit (you may need to go for the "Go Advanced" option) you can change the title as well as the main text. Failing that, you need to ask a Mod to do it for you. :biggrin:

 

[beckett50]

Two points: 1; It is in the law book / clarifications. 2: The "scarlets" are not playing.

Law 3.5 states
"(m) If there are no further front row replacements available when a front row player leaves the field of play, is sent off or temporarily suspended, uncontested scrums will be ordered. It is not the responsibility of the referee to determine the suitability of trained front row replacements nor their availability, as this is a team responsibility.responsibility of the referee to determine the suitability of trained front row replacements nor their availability, as this is a team responsibility."

This in no way, IMO, dictates that an STE FR player must be in position for an uncontested scrum, which by it's very nature has no shoving or contesting. I have never demanded a team provide another FR at the 3rd time of asking. What if they can't? Do you continue the match without any scrums?

As for the title - sorry bit was on the iPhone and scrolling back between pages :sad:

 

[Taff]

3.5 (m) If there are no further front row replacements available when a front row player leaves the field of play, is sent off or temporarily suspended, uncontested scrums will be ordered.

But if a FR replacement is on the bench, then he is "available" surely. :chin:

When the Dragons player was :noyc: for the "tip tackle" did Matreas really ask the TMO to check for a "foreplay incident"? :sad:

 

[RobLev]

Law 3.5 states
"(m) If there are no further front row replacements available when a front row player leaves the field of play, is sent off or temporarily suspended, uncontested scrums will be ordered. It is not the responsibility of the referee to determine the suitability of trained front row replacements nor their availability, as this is a team responsibility.responsibility of the referee to determine the suitability of trained front row replacements nor their availability, as this is a team responsibility."

This in no way, IMO, dictates that an STE FR player must be in position for an uncontested scrum, which by it's very nature has no shoving or contesting. I have never demanded a team provide another FR at the 3rd time of asking. What if they can't? Do you continue the match without any scrums?

As for the title - sorry bit was on the iPhone and scrolling back between pages :sad:

3.5(c)?

[LAWS]The replacement of a front row player must come from the suitably trained and experienced players who started the match or from nominated replacements. A player other than a nominated front row player is permitted to play in the front row only when uncontested scrums are being played and there are no available front row replacements.[/LAWS]

Therefore: if they've got FR replacements, then even if it's gone uncontested they must bring them on to ensure that they've got a front row of STE players, even if not STE for their particular position (which is why scrums are uncontested).

 

[Pegleg]

Did not have the Law book to hand when I posted so edited to remove the reference. Thanks to others who have indeed established that the law does require the FR to be FR is at all possible , irrespective of the status of the scrums.

 

[Phil E]

What should the title be?

 

[Pegleg]

Edinburgh V Newport Gwent Dragons. Or preferably Edinburgh V Newport.

 

[beckett50]

Can't change it, so if a mod can then that would be great