Front row replacements

[scarlet referee]

Team A have 19 players on team sheet with 5 front row players highlighted, 3 starting and 2 on the bench. But both players on the bench are hookers!? In the event of a prop getting injured they are able to cover this with their starting hooker, new hooker comes on and still covered from the bench.

Allowed and meet all criteria??

 

[Rushforth]

Well, the intent of the law is that once there are 18+ players, two front row substitutions can be made, one for a prop and the other for a specialised hooker.

Obviously until this season the nominated hookers at "elite" level have been lighter props playing in a third flanker role, but we are talking about now.

As far as I'm concerned, it is local regulations which go in to the real nitty gritty, but if it had been the hooker himself injured, there is no prop cover remaining. That said, I would rather that a team starting with its strongest front row and with two "hookers" on the bench be honest that these converted wings won't prop very well. Than the alternative, that is.

Manage it, if in doubt.

 

[Taff]

I would say yes.

They have 19 in the team, so must have a minimum of 5 STEs which they have. They can cover an injury to a Prop and a Hooker, so can't see a problem. Don't forget that a replacement can be from one of the starting 15, ie he doesn't have to come off the bench.

 

[OB..]

I would say yes.

They have 19 in the team, so must have a minimum of 5 STEs which they have. They can cover an injury to a Prop and a Hooker, so can't see a problem. Don't forget that a replacement can be from one of the starting 15, ie he doesn't have to come off the bench.

If the hooker gets injured, they have no replacement prop.

 

[TigerCraig]

But don't they only need to cover the first occasion of injury to each of a prop and a hooker?

They have covered the injury to a prop and are in a position to be able to cover an injury to a hooker. If they have a second prop injury they are fine because they have met their obligations

 

[The Fat]

But don't they only need to cover the first occasion of injury to each of a prop and a hooker?

They have covered the injury to a prop and are in a position to be able to cover an injury to a hooker. If they have a second prop injury they are fine because they have met their obligations

Not necessarily.
If the starting hooker is injured first, they bring on one of the 2 replacement hookers from the bench.
If a prop now gets injured, they have no-one to replace him with as the starting hooker, who was the only other player STE to also play prop, has already left the field because of injury. The only front row player left on the bench, according to the OP, is only trained as a hooker. The team has only been able to supply a replacement on the first occasion for the injured hooker and not, on the first occasion, for an injured prop.
If a prop had been injured first, the starting hooker could have covered the prop (as it was stated that he could also play at prop) and one of the two reserve hookers would come on and play at #2 leaving the other guy on the bench to cover for the first injury to a hooker.
Make sense?

 

[TigerCraig]

Not necessarily.
If the starting hooker is injured first, they bring on one of the 2 replacement hookers from the bench.
If a prop now gets injured, they have no-one to replace him with as the starting hooker, who was the only other player STE to also play prop, has already left the field because of injury. The only front row player left on the bench, according to the OP, is only trained as a hooker. The team has only been able to supply a replacement on the first occasion for the injured hooker and not, on the first occasion, for an injured prop.
If a prop had been injured first, the starting hooker could have covered the prop (as it was stated that he could also play at prop) and one of the two reserve hookers would come on and play at #2 leaving the other guy on the bench to cover for the first injury to a hooker.
Make sense?

Agree - sorry I was reading the OP as an actual event ie. the prop got injured first, not a hypothetical

 

[The Fat]

In juniors, I have had the odd coach approach me prior to a game to say that a particular kid has been trained as a prop but that this is his first actual game in that position and so I say to the coach that I will keep an eye on him at scrum time.
So whilst a team may say they have the required number of trained front rowers, you still need to keep your safety glasses on, especially in juniors, to make sure they pack and push correctly as you may still end up with uncontested scrums.

 

[Taff]

If the hooker gets injured, they have no replacement prop.

True, but they met their obligations at the start of the game.

I thought there was a clarification about this but I'll check later.

 

[scarlet referee]

Isn't the same as front row cover coming from starting 15? eg prop playing at 2nd row, and flanker covering hooker??

If either got injured they would still be allowed their replacements ??

 

[Blackberry]

With regards to coaches telling you about an inexperienced prop; I did a Level 8 game where I on my arrival on the pitch a coach came up to me and said because he had an inexperienced prop at loose head I must keep an eye open at the scrum and keep it safe. Hold fire, I replied, exactly what are you expecting me to do? (I felt a blame transfer beginning) He was unclear in how he felt I should be altering a ref's normal duties at the scrum, so I asked "Is he STE for this position?" The answer was yes. "Good, now what can I do at the scrum to overcome your fears?" He was unable to quantify this. I am always grateful when a coach gives me a heads up on this kind of issue, but we must all know there is very little we can do in a proactive way, most of our power is in a reactive form.

I also felt he was sowing the seeds to deflect criticism away from him if his player was subsequently injured.

 

[Jenko]

3.13 (a)
If after a front row player has been sent off or during the time a front row player is temporarily suspended, and there are no further front row players available from the nominated team, then 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

They take the consequences of Man off. They fulfilled the law as they had the 5 and ability (in theory) to replace hooker and prop on first occasions.

As the law says not your responsibility

 

[crossref]

Back to the OP.. As a ref, surely it makes no difference to you whether they have met the requirements.. All you have to know/enforce is that if they have they to uncontested it's man off
Whether they have or haven't met the requirements of the league is not for the referee to decide..

 

[crossref]

With regards to coaches telling you about an inexperienced prop; I did a Level 8 game where I on my arrival on the pitch a coach came up to me and said because he had an inexperienced prop at loose head I must keep an eye open at the scrum and keep it safe. Hold fire, I replied, exactly what are you expecting me to do? (I felt a blame transfer beginning) He was unclear in how he felt I should be altering a ref's normal duties at the scrum, so I asked "Is he STE for this position?" The answer was yes. "Good, now what can I do at the scrum to overcome your fears?" He was unable to quantify this. I am always grateful when a coach gives me a heads up on this kind of issue, but we must all know there is very little we can do in a proactive way, most of our power is in a reactive form.

I also felt he was sowing the seeds to deflect criticism away from him if his player was subsequently injured.

You can take care to always stand on the appropriate side of the scrum so that you can see him

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

There was a case in Yorkshire a couple of years ago whereby a team (18 players) declared 4 STEs prior to the match. When a prop got injured (?) the STE FR from the bench refused to prop (and I assume so did the incumbent hooker) claiming he was only a STE hooker.

The referee failed to apply the law in terms of man-off and/or record the non-availability of STE at first time of asking. I think it went to UC scrums. There was talk of points adjustments (deductions) in the leagues, replays etc etc

I cannot recall the outcome other than it proved to be a talking point in Yorkshire at the time.

 

[Browner]

As an aside .........

If scrum goes uncontested , does the need to 'match numbers' ie 3-4-1, down to 3-4, or 3-2-1 remain? ... [in juniors?]

matching numbers is merely a safety issue which has been negated by the 'uncontested' status ???

 

[TheBFG]

in Juniors you ALWAYS match numbers in the scrum for what ever reason SAFETY SAFETY SAFETY :wink:

 

[Toby Warren]

Can someone please clarify for me. There is talk of 'first time of asking'

I assume this is a league requirement as the man off regs make it man off each time they can't fulfil it (or have I read that wrong)

 

[Dixie]

But none of this is an issue for a referee. It is not the ref's job to evaluate STE - that's the coach's function. If he doesn't meet his obligations, that's one for the blazers to sort out in the committee room during the week after the game. The ref needs to be alert to the possibility that a replacemetn for an injured prop may lack STE such that uncontested scrums are required - but if he asks each FR replacemetn to confirm his STE status for his new role and gets a positive, he's done his due diligence there. Therafter, he needs to double check that position at the next few scrums to see whether he's been told the truth, adn go to uncontested if not certain.

 

[TheBFG]

Can someone please clarify for me. There is talk of 'first time of asking'

I assume this is a league requirement as the man off regs make it man off each time they can't fulfil it (or have I read that wrong)

teams ALWAYS play with 14 if it's uncontested, the "first time of asking" is as you say, a league requirement, there's a box to tick on the team card (or sheet as they seem to have in London), then it becomes a league issue to deal with, you just report facts :wink: