[Law] FR Interchanges

[chbg]

Taken from a Society Facebook discussion:

In the early part of the game Red see better in the scrums and start to dominate. Red interchange both props and then Blue come back into the scrum and push Red back a few yards and win a turnover. A couple of mins later Blue are awarded a PK on the attacking 5m line. They opt for a scrum. Red then interchange both props again and win the resulting scrum. So question is....
A) should I have allowed the interchange?
B) because it was from a PK option, does that differ from a normal scrum?

Thoughts? With justification in Law?

'HQ' have provided the answer for England, but that would spoil the fun ...

 

[crossref]

Q - is this an RFU League game ? As the answer to this will depend on the competition regulations

 

[Flish]

The only consideration for me is are the Interchanges allowed, so not really a point of law, but as crossref suggests a league regulation, some are limited, and were the interchanges tactical or for injury (sometimes relevant)

 

[Christy]

Rolling subs , all ok for me

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

For me at level 7, you can have 8 changes from 3 replacements so as long as they haven't made 8 interchanges, all seems ok to me.

 

[crossref]

this is a Regulations question rather than a Laws question, as different competitions have different regs on subs.

If it's an RFU league game, at an ordinary level then i think it's all OK. In the Sussex Merit Tables it wouldn't be...


but one thing that intrigues me is : who gets the final word, when red say they are making two interchanges can blue then change their mind and decide to kick for touch, so then can red change their mind and say they won't make the interchanges then .. and so on


I had a similar situation in a game last week following a YC to a prop, the team with the PK wanted to establish whether or not scrums would be uncontested if they were to choose a scrum, and the other team were reluctant to tell them...

 

[chbg]

RFU provided a Law answer.

Assume the necessary number of Interchanges are available and no FR regulations are broken.

 

[SimonSmith]

From America:
If interchanges are allowed, you have to go with it.
And absent any other factors, no reason to treat it any different.



I don't like interchanges

 

[Camquin]

I like interchanges because the are simple - you count them and that is it.
If you are playing interchanges then there is no reason not to allow the FR back until tey have used up their allowance
If not then normally if you go off, you cannot come back on - except for blood replacements, hia cover and in the case of front rows if an injured player has to go off then the payer they tactically replaced can come back on if not doing so would lead to uncontested scrums or some other wriggle I have forgotten.

 

[crossref]

RFU provided a Law answer.

Assume the necessary number of Interchanges are available and no FR regulations are broken.

Assuming, then , that all the competition regulations are met, we are left with the Law

[LAWS] Replacements are made only when the ball is dead and only with the permission of the referee. [/LAWS]

The ball is clearly dead

I cannot see why you would withhold permission.

but I have a feeling that the RFU see a reason . I hope they didn't say it was an act contrary to good sportsmanship.

 

[Balones]

Harking back to an old thread. WR law is clear but I know that the RFU may interpret it slightly differently. Law Clarification 2-2007.

 

[crossref]

That clarification is very old , and the Law context of 2007 was different .

And it refers only to the team taking the PK and whether they can make substitution, it doesn't deal with the oppo

But hey, yes, it supports the answer that it is all permissable


But really I think no answer is possible unless you know what competition regulations say

 

[Camquin]

I have seen referees not permit interchanges on an opposition PK - and extend that to a scrum taken in place of a kick and the line-out following a PK to touch.

The RFu regulation 13 Appendix 2 para 28 states:

"In addition to the powers set out in the Laws of the Game, Referees are entitled in their sole opinion to prohibit or postpone a Player Interchange if they believe either that the Player Interchange would prevent the opposition from restarting the game quickly or where the replacement Player is not fit to continue playing in the match."

 

[crossref]

That would apply when Blue want to take a quick tap, and certainly I would not allow Red to stop a quick tap by making a replacement .

But once Blue opt for a scrum .. a scrum is a usual/normal time for replacements

 

[Balones]

I have seen referees not permit interchanges on an opposition PK - and extend that to a scrum taken in place of a kick and the line-out following a PK to touch.

The RFu regulation 13 Appendix 2 para 28 states:

"In addition to the powers set out in the Laws of the Game, Referees are entitled in their sole opinion to prohibit or postpone a Player Interchange if they believe either that the Player Interchange would prevent the opposition from restarting the game quickly or where the replacement Player is not fit to continue playing in the match."

This situation has come about by word of mouth perpetuated in societies and is a widespead myth. Referees at all levels take it with them and so you will see it at some of the higher level games. It stems from a blanket belief of ‘no changes at penalties’ etc but not taking on board that it applies to quick penalties only. I accept that 2-2007 is getting on a bit but it was an attempt to remove the myth. But in reality how many officials actually trawl through the laws snd such things?