Equity

jdeagro


Referees in America
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
367
Post Likes
72
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
I guess it would depend on competition rules, some lower leagues do not have man off, but I would not be going back to contested unless a suitably trained replacement comes on after the initial uncontested.
Anyone wants to complain, leave it to the the old farts in competition rules, not my problem. Always safety first.
That's essentially my take and what I was trying to convey, much more verbosely lol.
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,849
Post Likes
888
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
thats accepted Marc.

But as in " eg unconnected with loss of a FR player say?".
ie scrum, scrum, scrum, scrum .... then after twenty scrums the same pack then says, at a defensive 5m scrum "we are going uncontested".
IF a player tells you he's tried his best but has struggled and no longer feels safe. Are you going to insist they scrummage?
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,225
Post Likes
2,219
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I don't necessarily agree with Marc in the scenario they described.

I'll always listen to the question "can we go uncontested" from the captain of either side. But it doesn't mean I'm going to allow it. I would have to have good reason to allow it, such as a legitimate safety concern (whether through my own observation throughout the match or for example both props were just replaced with subs who've never played before, as noted by the captain). Or it's a lopsided match, 75 to nil in a friendly, and they've been getting demolished in scrums all day, and just want some form of consistency. Perhaps that's an application of equity (per the actual definition of the word).

But if scrums have been pretty safe all game, and all of a sudden the side about to be driven into their in-goal off a penalty they committed calls for uncontested, I'm not going to allow it just for cause there. To me it's no different than a player faking injury during the opposing team's advantage or maul after time has expired, so that there's no time left for a scrum restart after (as mentioned either earlier in this thread or another recent one). It's a bit of gaming the system, and I'm opposed to it.

Should however, a safety concern arise that causes uncontested, even in the scenario Marc described where it could've been done intentionally (e.g. changing out the props for new players), then they're locked into that decision for me until the safety issue is corrected.
Wow, wow & wow.
I get sweaty palms just thinking about how I'd answer in the coroner's court if I'd forced a team to remain contested after their captain had requested uncontested.
"Your Honour, I'll teach those namby pamby mummy's boys to be real men if its the last thing I do" probably won't cut it.

PS: put your house in your wife's name ASAP
 

RemainingInTheGame


Referees in Australia
Joined
May 16, 2022
Messages
140
Post Likes
95
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
Team getting smashed, no issue with uncontested (in juniors here we take a player off at 40pts difference and another at 50pts difference - so at either point it generally moves to uncontested).

We also have a competition rule that if a game starts with contested scrums, but then goes to uncontested due to unavailable first replacement of a prop and also the first replacement of a hooker then we go uncontested but the team unable to contest must drop a player.

So if a captain asked to go uncontested in a situation where I thought they were gaming - I'd say no worries, and ask them to drop a player - that way it's their decision not mine.
 
Last edited:

jdeagro


Referees in America
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
367
Post Likes
72
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
Wow, wow & wow.
I get sweaty palms just thinking about how I'd answer in the coroner's court if I'd forced a team to remain contested after their captain had requested uncontested.

Why? Is the captain refereeing the match or are you?

If there was a legitimate reason for going uncontested, yes, I'd allow it (as I stated). But if they were trying to game the system, then of course I'm not gonna cave to their request.

And again, if they make it into an actual safety issue in order to game the system, fine uncontested, but now we're uncontested for the rest of the match unless there's good reason that safety issue gets resolved.

Think of it this way. If there's no safety issue (or other good reason to go uncontested), then why choose to listen to one captain over another who would want contested scrums?
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,225
Post Likes
2,219
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
And again, if they make it into an actual safety issue in order to game the system, fine uncontested, but now we're uncontested for the rest of the match unless there's good reason that safety issue gets resolved.
I don't really understand what this means.

I'm OK to agree to disagree but the only thing I'd ask is for you to check with your Society if your approach is correct and get their answer in writing.
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,849
Post Likes
888
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Wow, wow & wow.
I get sweaty palms just thinking about how I'd answer in the coroner's court if I'd forced a team to remain contested after their captain had requested uncontested.
"Your Honour, I'll teach those namby pamby mummy's boys to be real men if its the last thing I do" probably won't cut it.

PS: put your house in your wife's name ASAP
SPOT ON!
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,849
Post Likes
888
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Why? Is the captain refereeing the match or are you?

If there was a legitimate reason for going uncontested, yes, I'd allow it (as I stated). But if they were trying to game the system, then of course I'm not gonna cave to their request.

And again, if they make it into an actual safety issue in order to game the system, fine uncontested, but now we're uncontested for the rest of the match unless there's good reason that safety issue gets resolved.

Think of it this way. If there's no safety issue (or other good reason to go uncontested), then why choose to listen to one captain over another who would want contested scrums?
I've had games where, before the game I've been told we are contesting but our LHP is a TH be we think he's ok. I'll watch him closely and go UC if I'm not happy. If at any time he feels he is unsafe we go uncontested if he says so. This is about safety and not about "who is in charge". It is not for us to allow.
Safety trumps everything. I find it dificult to say anything positive about your approach to player safety.
In fact if I was a coach /captain and a referee refused our indication that we are going uncontested I would remove my side from the field and put in an official complaint about the referee.
 
Last edited:

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,164
Post Likes
1,846
IF a player tells you he's tried his best but has struggled and no longer feels safe. Are you going to insist they scrummage?
again fair enough. I hadn't got the impression from the poster that raised this scenario that this was the case, but I totally concur with you!
I suppose Im trying to poorly ask, where side A has had no problems scrumming safety wise, and suddenly declares they are now uncontested with no other explanation.

But you raise an interesting point there ...
Searching aroud this sight will elicit i'm sure my anecdote about playing Windsor years and years ago

[ aha!
https://forum.rugbyrefs.com/index.php?threads/where-are-you-this-weekend-2023-24.22794/post-390386
https://forum.rugbyrefs.com/index.php?threads/i-know-this-has-been-asked-a-million-times-but…….22614/post-382764 ]

when they declared that their hooker (IIRC) had a very sore neck and so the on field replacement would need uncontested scrums - but that replaced hooker went and then played on the wing to maintain 15 on the pitch. The ref queried whether he should be on the pitch if his neck was that bad , but at that time anyway ref felt he didnt have the power to insist that player left the field for his own safety. (Im now possibly derailing my own thread!)
 
Last edited:

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,225
Post Likes
2,219
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
when they declared that their hooker (IIRC) had a very sore neck and so the on field replacement would need uncontested scrums - but that replaced hooker went and then played on the wing to maintain 15 on the pitch. The ref queried whether he should be on the pitch if his neck was that bad , but at that time anyway ref felt he didnt have the power to insist that player left the field for his own safety. (Im now possibly derailing my own thread!)
I did a bit of a law search and they (the laws) always seem to assume the injured FR player has left the pitch. There appears to be no mention of a FR player (who has a, for instance, sore neck) staying in the scrum or playing in the backs
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,164
Post Likes
1,846
I did a bit of a law search and they (the laws) always seem to assume the injured FR player has left the pitch. There appears to be no mention of a FR player (who has a, for instance, sore neck) staying in the scrum or playing in the backs
another law drafted by the 12 year old ?
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,849
Post Likes
888
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
again fair enough. I hadn't got the impression from the poster that raised this scenario that this was the case, but I totally concur with you!
I suppose Im trying to poorly ask, where side A has had no problems scrumming safety wise, and suddenly declares they are now uncontested with no other explanation.

But you raise an interesting point there ...
Searching aroud this sight will elicit i'm sure my anecdote about playing Windsor years and years ago

[ aha!
https://forum.rugbyrefs.com/index.php?threads/where-are-you-this-weekend-2023-24.22794/post-390386
https://forum.rugbyrefs.com/index.php?threads/i-know-this-has-been-asked-a-million-times-but…….22614/post-382764 ]

when they declared that their hooker (IIRC) had a very sore neck and so the on field replacement would need uncontested scrums - but that replaced hooker went and then played on the wing to maintain 15 on the pitch. The ref queried whether he should be on the pitch if his neck was that bad , but at that time anyway ref felt he didnt have the power to insist that player left the field for his own safety. (Im now possibly derailing my own thread!)
If they say a player is injured and therfore can't scrummange then I'd insist he was replaced. But I can't override their contention that they can't contest. That would be legal suicide!
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,136
Post Likes
2,409
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
In England (as in Australia I think) if they go to uncontested scrums, then the team that caused it play with 14 men.
 

jdeagro


Referees in America
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
367
Post Likes
72
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
Safety trumps everything. I find it dificult to say anything positive about your approach to player safety.
I believe you and Dickie must honestly getting a little lost in what I said. At no point did I disagree on safety and going uncontested. I've said thrice now, for a safety issue I have no problem going uncontested. And even for other non-safety reasons I'll allow it.

This is a pretty simple and hopefully clear point: "If there's no safety issue (or other good reason to go uncontested)..." then why go uncontested?
 

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,479
Post Likes
525
A few times during my blowing career I have ordered uncontested scrums for safety reasons regardless of what the teams thought. Several times I have had a quiet word with a side to ease off or we were going to go uncontested and there’s not been any argument. I still allowed a ‘gentle’ shove.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,164
Post Likes
1,846
If they say a player is injured and therfore can't scrummange then I'd insist he was replaced. But I can't override their contention that they can't contest. That would be legal suicide!
and for the record I personally 100% agree with both points! I was justy gauging general feelings, especially about that 2nd point ie voluntary non contested
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,164
Post Likes
1,846
In England (as in Australia I think) if they go to uncontested scrums, then the team that caused it play with 14 men.
isnt that hopwever down to competition regs and even levels of leagues?
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,136
Post Likes
2,409
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
isnt that hopwever down to competition regs and even levels of leagues?

RFU regs say you lose a man if you cause uncontested scrums.
There are however local regs in some areas/competitions that over-ride this. Mainly at lower levels to ensure a game continues.
 

Ciaran Trainor


Referees in England
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
2,871
Post Likes
383
Location
Walney Island
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
Just picking up on one point that has been raised here.
If a team say to me one of our front rows has a sore neck and can no longer continue contested. I would not allow that player to continue playing in any position no matter what the competition regulations say, man off or not.
That player is leaving the field permanently.
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,849
Post Likes
888
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
In England (as in Australia I think) if they go to uncontested scrums, then the team that caused it play with 14 men.
At higher levels we also do but not at my level.
 
Top