Equity

[Dickie E]

No he can't. unless Rolling subs, A subbed player can also return to cover an injured FR player to maintain contested scrums See law 3 in particular 28, 33 and 34.

Ah I see. Here, all of our games are played with rolling replacements (law 3.34)

 

[jdeagro]

well that raises another point I guess... where in cases like these why shouldn't their be an expectation that the original THP returns from flanking duties? Otherwise any side cold force UC just by moving a prop to the wing and the wing into prop.

Kind of related, I always assumed officially, certain parts of the game must be played by the player positions described in the laws. This is particularly relevant at scrum time when the lawbook specifically defined which positions bind where. Furthermore, the number on your back dictates the position you're currently playing as.

Obviously this is never particularly enforced (at least not at the level of play I get to witness and partake in). But I assumed at the professional level, if a referee wanted to be a bugger, they could follow the lawbook verbatim which would prevent this position interchange.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

The only stipulation is on "STE" front row players (youth laws are slightly different) and law 3.13 is important for me.

Scrums will become uncontested if either team cannot field a suitably trained front row or if the referee so orders.

.

Logically extrapolating from 3.13 we have:
Scrums will be contested if both team can field a suitably trained front row.

If there are 3 players who are STE to be able to fulfil LHP, H and THP on the fied or ont the bench then they play and in those positions. If they c my LHP goes out on the wing to create a non-scrummaging FR the referee should say "either you scrummage or you are off the field as "permanently replaced (injured).

the following suggest this is the correct approach:

3.10 Prior to the match, each team must advise the appropriate match official of their front-row players and possible front-row replacements and which position(s) in the front row they can play. Only these players may play in the front row when the scrum is contested and only in their designated position(s)

and more importantly.

3.18 Only when no replacement front-row player is available is any other player permitted to play in the front row.

The fact that your STE LHP is "hiding" on the wing or has gone off to the bench but you claim he is not injured means that you are saying yhat at STE is indeed available therefore to fulfil 3.18 he must play in the FR.

Or in other words.

You can only go uncontested if there is an inability through injury or due to cards to field STE plaers in the three FR positions.

 

[Dickie E]

The only stipulation is on "STE" front row players (youth laws are slightly different) and law 3.13 is important for me.

Scrums will become uncontested if either team cannot field a suitably trained front row or if the referee so orders.

.

Logically extrapolating from 3.13 we have:
Scrums will be contested if both team can field a suitably trained front row.

If there are 3 players who are STE to be able to fulfil LHP, H and THP on the fied or ont the bench then they play and in those positions. If they c my LHP goes out on the wing to create a non-scrummaging FR the referee should say "either you scrummage or you are off the field as "permanently replaced (injured).

the following suggest this is the correct approach:

3.10 Prior to the match, each team must advise the appropriate match official of their front-row players and possible front-row replacements and which position(s) in the front row they can play. Only these players may play in the front row when the scrum is contested and only in their designated position(s)

and more importantly.

3.18 Only when no replacement front-row player is available is any other player permitted to play in the front row.

The fact that your STE LHP is "hiding" on the wing or has gone off to the bench but you claim he is not injured means that you are saying yhat at STE is indeed available therefore to fulfil 3.18 he must play in the FR.

Or in other words.

You can only go uncontested if there is an inability through injury or due to cards to field STE plaers in the three FR positions.

How does all this align with your post #42? Which i agreed with so don't go spoiling things

 

[Marc Wakeham]

How does all this align with your post #42? Which i agreed with so don't go spoiling things

what I said was:

"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?" So the player is telling you he does not consider he is STE.

So the referee is being told the player no longer feels STE in that particular environment.

This might clarify.:

I was a district level LHP I also played at Hooker at youth. I ould have beenconsidered STE in both positions but not THP. If my team had a "firsts" in the Welsh league system (we didn't but if) and I was asked to play foor that side. I would have been marked down as STE on the team sheet. The first couple of scrums againd a better quality prop would possibly / probably (delete are required) tell me and hopefully the referee that I was cetainly not STE at that level. I woud not be injured but if it was clear to me that I was in danger or that my trying to scrummage would put the other 15 guys in danger. Then that situation needs to be resolved. Does it make a difference who makesthe call that the player is not STE for the level he is playing in on that day.

One is a safety issue. The other is a player who can't continue because of injury actually faking not being injured (to keep 15 on the park but avoiding scrum time or faking an injury to avoid just being second best at scrum time

As indicated in another post I've had sensible coaches who have advised me that a FR player is, they believe STE, but please watch him as indeed they will and if it proves not to be the case then they may need to adjust thinking.

If it is a safety concern you don't argue. If a team pulls a number on you so be it. But avoiding being second best is not the same as being unsafe.

We report games that go uncontested detailing reason / details. If the union see a patern emerge of a club possibly cheating they can take action.But that is their call. Safety is top of our agenda. One league I am involedin says that a team cannot be promoted if in over a certain % of games they fail to provide sufficient FR players to scrummage.

 

[Dickie E]

what I said was:

"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?" So the player is telling you he does not consider he is STE.

So the referee is being told the player no longer feels STE in that particular environment.

This might clarify.:

I was a district level LHP I also played at Hooker at youth. I ould have beenconsidered STE in both positions but not THP. If my team had a "firsts" in the Welsh league system (we didn't but if) and I was asked to play foor that side. I would have been marked down as STE on the team sheet. The first couple of scrums againd a better quality prop would possibly / probably (delete are required) tell me and hopefully the referee that I was cetainly not STE at that level. I woud not be injured but if it was clear to me that I was in danger or that my trying to scrummage would put the other 15 guys in danger. Then that situation needs to be resolved. Does it make a difference who makesthe call that the player is not STE for the level he is playing in on that day.

One is a safety issue. The other is a player who can't continue because of injury actually faking not being injured (to keep 15 on the park but avoiding scrum time or faking an injury to avoid just being second best at scrum time

As indicated in another post I've had sensible coaches who have advised me that a FR player is, they believe STE, but please watch him as indeed they will and if it proves not to be the case then they may need to adjust thinking.

If it is a safety concern you don't argue. If a team pulls a number on you so be it. But avoiding being second best is not the same as being unsafe.

We report games that go uncontested detailing reason / details. If the union see a patern emerge of a club possibly cheating they can take action.But that is their call. Safety is top of our agenda. One league I am involedin says that a team cannot be promoted if in over a certain % of games they fail to provide sufficient FR players to scrummage.

So the player who moves from being STE to not STE in a game, does he get banished to the early bath or can he play on the wing or can he stay in an uncontested front row?

 

[Volun-selected]

So the player who moves from being STE to not STE in a game, does he get banished to the early bath or can he play on the wing or can he stay in an uncontested front row?

If they can still play - so is physically OK but has just found out they are not STE “enough” then I think they stay in place in the UC front row.

However, if you then take a moment to consider what your decision would have been if the team had declared they were out of STE players in the first place - does that mean it may well be a case of “Ok, for we’re going to uncontested, and captain - you’re down to 14, select a player to go off.”

But could this lead to a dilemma? If I, as the ref, order UC on safety grounds that scenario isn’t covered in the 2020 application guidelines - but as a safety issue I’d assume that we play on, with no reduction on a team.

The dilemma for the FR player - if they confess they’re out of their depth then they risk the team going down a player. If they stay quiet and push on, potentially putting themselves and others at risk, but waiting for me to see they’re being destroyed and/or failing miserably - then they may keep their team at full strength.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

So the player who moves from being STE to not STE in a game, does he get banished to the early bath or can he play on the wing or can he stay in an uncontested front row?

There is no question of an injury so why not? An injured player leaves the field. If an injury prevent you from doing your job I'll replace you. If you are just not good enough. That is your team's problem.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

If they can still play - so is physically OK but has just found out they are not STE “enough” then I think they stay in place in the UC front row.

However, if you then take a moment to consider what your decision would have been if the team had declared they were out of STE players in the first place - does that mean it may well be a case of “Ok, for we’re going to uncontested, and captain - you’re down to 14, select a player to go off.”

But could this lead to a dilemma? If I, as the ref, order UC on safety grounds that scenario isn’t covered in the 2020 application guidelines - but as a safety issue I’d assume that we play on, with no reduction on a team.

The dilemma for the FR player - if they confess they’re out of their depth then they risk the team going down a player. If they stay quiet and push on, potentially putting themselves and others at risk, but waiting for me to see they’re being destroyed and/or failing miserably - then they may keep their team at full strength.

If man off rues apply then a team asking to go UC pay any penalty. If the referee decides it UC then I'm not sure we shoud be forcing man off.

 

[Dickie E]

An interesting aside. I was talking to a ref yesterday who was involved in the recent Bingham Cup in Rome. One of the participating French sides turned up with no STE FR players because, in their competition in France, they can't have contested scrums at all because they can't get insurance cover.

 

[Dickie E]

There is no question of an injury so why not? An injured player leaves the field. If an injury prevent you from doing your job I'll replace you. If you are just not good enough. That is your team's problem.

there may be a school of thought that this player is indeed suffering an injury, a mental health injury (anxiety, etc).

In a broader sense, how do the laws deal with a player who suffers a condition such as asthma? If he/she goes off for treatment, can he/she be temporarily replaced or is an asthma attack an injury?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

there may be a school of thought that this player is indeed suffering an injury, a mental health injury (anxiety, etc).

In a broader sense, how do the laws deal with a player who suffers a condition such as asthma? If he/she goes off for treatment, can he/she be temporarily replaced or is an asthma attack an injury?

Mental health? Really?? Safety of the scrum is paramount. If a player says they are not STE having experienced the level of crum that i itend of story. A new scrummager comes on or we go uncontested. This is NOT the same an an injury that was suffered pre (and worsened) or during a game. It is not a mental health issue to realise you can't compete at that level.

Asthma is not an injury it is a medical condition that they playafter considering any medical advice . They use the inhaler, if needed, and carry on. Just like putting in a contact lense

An interesting aside. I was talking to a ref yesterday who was involved in the recent Bingham Cup in Rome. One of the participating French sides turned up with no STE FR players because, in their competition in France, they can't have contested scrums at all because they can't get insurance cover.

Very odd. Is it because there may be people from the eitire LGBT etc spectrum playing and that would possibly include former men playing as women?

However, not replated to thread since the players are not able to be consider STE.

 

[Flish]

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?

I can’t imagine any scenario around going uncontested where I have any option but to ‘allow it’ - I may have my suspicions, and I may not be happy with the grumps and finger pointing that will follow - but if they ask it gets allowed, I just need to understand the why

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I can’t imagine any scenario around going uncontested where I have any option but to ‘allow it’ - I may have my suspicions, and I may not be happy with the grumps and finger pointing that will follow - but if they ask it gets allowed, I just need to understand the why

Spot on. For a referee to say: "Why? Is the captain refereeing the match or are you?" is very worrying. If a team says they need to go uncontested there is not case for: "If there was a legitimate reason for going uncontested, yes, I'd allow it" The fact that the side have said they need to go uncontested IS the legitimate reason for the referee The Union / event organisers can deal with any accusation of "playing the system". The referee stays WAY, WAY, WAY out of all that stuff.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

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?

What possible non safety iss is there for going uncontested?

And from another post: "But if they were trying to game the system, then of course I'm not gonna cave to their request." How could you possible make that call?

We are not getting lost. What you say makes no sense.

 

[Dickie E]

Spot on. For a referee to say: "Why? Is the captain refereeing the match or are you?" is very worrying. If a team says they need to go uncontested there is not case for: "If there was a legitimate reason for going uncontested, yes, I'd allow it" The fact that the side have said they need to go uncontested IS the legitimate reason for the referee The Union / event organisers can deal with any accusation of "playing the system". The referee stays WAY, WAY, WAY out of all that stuff.

OK, got that, and don't disagree.

Ref: "Skipper, we will go uncontested as requested but tell me, why do you want to go uncontested?"
Captain: "Well, ref, our hooker has got a sore shoulder and is no longer comfortable in a contested scrum."

So what happens next?

 

[didds]

<devils advocate>
Ref: can he tackle with a sore shoulder safely?
He is off. he is the weakest link. Goodbye.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

OK, got that, and don't disagree.

Ref: "Skipper, we will go uncontested as requested but tell me, why do you want to go uncontested?"
Captain: "Well, ref, our hooker has got a sore shoulder and is no longer comfortable in a contested scrum."

So what happens next?

Here, he goes of as an injury and he does not comeback on.

 

[jdeagro]

The Union / event organisers can deal with any accusation of "playing the system". The referee stays WAY, WAY, WAY out of all that stuff.

Not at all.

If you're saying you, as the referee, don't ever get involved when you know a player is gaming the system, then you're saying you ignore players who are intentionally time wasting such as faking needing to re-tie their boots, faking injuries, illegally slowing dead ball down at opposition's opportunities, and numerous other tricks players may try to get cheeky with. None of which is in the spirit of the game.

Hard for me to believe you have 0 involvement of any of the kind.

 

[Rich_NL]

Not at all.

If you're saying you, as the referee, don't ever get involved when you know a player is gaming the system, then you're saying you ignore players who are intentionally time wasting such as faking needing to re-tie their boots, faking injuries, illegally slowing dead ball down at opposition's opportunities, and numerous other tricks players may try to get cheeky with. None of which is in the spirit of the game.

Hard for me to believe you have 0 involvement of any of the kind.

Retying your boots and throwing the ball away:
- doesn't rely on self-reporting from the player
- doesn't risk extremely serious injury if you're wrong

A decision on what is a "fake" injury has safety consequences, which trump spirit of the game consequences. As referees, it's not our job (or right) to make medical assessments.