Glaws v Bath

[OB..]

Can't help wondering why he was so Scottish that he didn't choose them at u19/u21 ?

Approached by Scotland?
England not interested?

 

[colesy]

Can't help wondering why he was so Scottish that he didn't choose them at u19/u21 ? When did the realisation hit him, on his 22nd birthday?

A bit like Martin Johnson playing for NZ U21s - he happened to be there at the time.

 

[Browner]

Can anyone throw light on this,

are players named as position specific replacements, or merely named as front row replacements which presumably covers all front row positions? .....ie... can a THP insist he's not STE as a LHP ?

http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/Gloucester-Rugby-view-Shed/story-20954898-detail/story.html
Says
"
Whether or not Dan Murphy can play tighthead is not the issue. He says he cannot and, with safety the main concern, his word has to be taken as the deciding factor. However unsatisfactory the outcome. But why was it left to Murphy and Gloucester to make the decision? Surely each side should supply a list of who can do what and who cannot before each game and that is what determines what happens in that situation"
................

Plus
STE .v. STE without losing some scrum power when your no1 prop has departed ....are two separate discussions

 

[OB..]

Mike Ford is blaming the ref here, while then going on to say that he's not trying to blame the ref!

Toby Booth said

That is disappointing in this day and age and especially as we believe they had a player on the bench that was possibly capable of doing that.

"Possibly capable"?! Is he really saying that as a coach he would have played him even though he had not trained there for 3 years? Or is he just trying to score points? FAIL.

 

[Browner]

A bit like Martin Johnson playing for NZ U21s - he happened to be there at the time.

A good answer, if it werent for the the travelling distances being ' slightly' different

 

[Camquin]

Surely it comes down to what is required and what is recorded on the match sheet - and I am not au fait with the premiership regulations - which I think may differ from the general RFU ones.

However looking in the good book:

Law 3.5 requires

When 19, 20, 21 or 22 players are nominated in a team there must be five players who can play in the front row to ensure that on the first occasion that a replacement hooker is required, and on the first occasion that a replacement prop forward is required, the team can continue to play safely with contested scrums.

However in Law 3.14

(c)

When 22 or 23 players are nominated in a team there must be sufficient front row players to play at hooker, tight-head prop and loose-head prop who are suitably trained and experienced to ensure that on the first occasion that a replacement in any front row position is required, the team can continue to play safely with contested scrums.

(d)

A provision may be introduced that where uncontested scrums are ordered as a result of there being no suitably trained and experienced front row replacement for any reason, the team concerned shall not be entitled to replace the player whose departure caused uncontested scrums.


And in law 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.






RFU regulations 13.5.10 require a squad to contain 5 players capable of playing in the front row to ensure that on the first two occasions where a front row player has to be replaced the game can continue with contested scrums.

The Red Card was the second interchange in the front row - the first was Sila coming on for Shaun Knight
One thing I am trying to discover having not watched the whole match, was Shaun Knight injured.

If he went off tactically, I believe he should have come back on if Nick Wood and Dan Murphy can only play loose and Hula Edwards and Dan George can only hook.

Camquin

 

[Browner]

How strange that 22 players = x5 STE in 3.5 ( say hook, THP replacement) , yet the same 22 = x6 STEs in 3.14 (THP hook LHP)

Gloucester had x8 replacements, so presumably 3.14 was operating.
http://www.skysports.com/rugbyunion/match_facts/0,20243,11069_60978_1,00.html

There is a distinct whiff of suspicion around this subject, for sure.

Pro players should declare their STE position as part of their registration, and clubs unable to change it.
Wouldn't it be ludicrous if a player denied being STE at say THP after he'd been selected at THP by the same club or reserve team or even his country previously

....law 3.13 is clearly there for the community game safety.

 

[beckett50]

I seem to recall Steve Thompson being embroiled in an STE argument/debate whilst he was playing flanker.

 

[Browner]

I seem to recall Steve Thompson being embroiled in an STE argument/debate whilst he was playing flanker.

Good memory, maybe Vickery shouldof claimed not STE v beast !!!

 

[The umpire]

A good answer, if it werent for the the travelling distances being ' slightly' different

Or Tomasso Allen going the other way from Scotland U19/21 to Italy...

 

[Stuartg]

Good memory, maybe Vickery shouldof claimed not STE v beast !!! [/QUOTE

No! No! No!

Write out 1000 times "should HAVE claimed". Ye gods and little fishes!

 

[Ian_Cook]

I would suggest that if anyone's talking out their arse it's you. And it's not as though England are coming from any kind of place of ideological purity on this, are they?

:clap::clap::clap:

And they have the temerity to accuse US of poaching!

 

[Ian_Cook]

RFU regulations 13.5.10 require a squad to contain 5 players capable of playing in the front row to ensure that on the first two occasions where a front row player has to be replaced the game can continue with contested scrums.

Right, so that raises a question.

AP teams are naming a squad of 23 players for each match. Law 3.5 says they can only do this if they are using the Unions Specific Variations...

[LAWS]3.5 SUITABLY TRAINED AND EXPERIENCED PLAYERS IN THE FRONT ROW
(a) The table below indicates the numbers of suitably trained and experienced players available for the front row when nominating different numbers of players.
(b) Each player in the front row and any potential replacement(s) must be suitably trained and experienced.
Number of players Number of suitably trained and experienced players

15 or less Three players who can play in the front row
16, 17 or 18 Four players who can play in the front row
19, 20, 21 or 22 Five players who can play in the front row
(Union Specific Variations Law 3.14)
22 or 23 Six players who can play in the front row[/LAWS]

If what you say is true, then the RFU Regulation appears to be in breach of this Law. It clearly says that if 23 players are named, then SIX of them must be STE. Additionally, Law 3.14 makes it clear that all three positions must be covered.

[LAWS]3.14 UNION SPECIFIC VARIATIONS
(c) When 22 or 23 players are nominated in a team there must be sufficient front row players
to play at hooker, tight-head prop and loose-head prop who are suitably trained and
experienced to ensure that on the first occasion that a replacement in any front row position
is required, the team can continue to play safely with contested scrums.[/LAWS]


So Gloucester's team sheet shows

Nick Wood (LHP)
Shaun Knight (THP)
Dan George (Hooker)
Huia Edmonds (Hooker) Bench
Dan Murphy (Prop) Bench
Sila Puafisi (Prop) Bench

So, that is the SIX required by 3.5 & 3.14.

 

[collybs]

The BBC say that there are two citings as well as the cards.

Abendanon and Bath prop Paul James have both received "post-match citings" for striking Knoyle and a stamp on Shaun Knight respectively.

 

[colesy]

I seem to recall Steve Thompson being embroiled in an STE argument/debate whilst he was playing flanker.

That wasn't an STE argument, it was about injury. Thompson said he couldn't move from flanker to the front row because he was recovering from a neck injury which prevented him from playing hooker but not flanker.

 

[TheBFG]

does anyone know the series of events that led to the point "they need to go uncontested as there's no STE FR"?

Was it something to do with the prop getting a RC for trying to take Bendy's head off as he was a sub (20+ on his back)?

 

[OB..]

does anyone know the series of events that led to the point "they need to go uncontested as there's no STE FR"?

Was it something to do with the prop getting a RC for trying to take Bendy's head off as he was a sub (20+ on his back)?

The first one was injured, the second was sent off.

 

[Camquin]

Yes Shaun Knight started and went off, he was injured by a possible stamp by Paul James.
Sila Puafisi came on and made a high tackle and saw Red.
Gloucester then claimed they had no more players capable of playing tight head.

Can someone explain why the man off rule did not apply?

 

[Jacko]

Yes Shaun Knight started and went off, he was injured by a possible stamp by Paul James.
Sila Puafisi came on and made a high tackle and saw Red.
Gloucester then claimed they had no more players capable of playing tight head.

Can someone explain why the man off rule did not apply?

Because the front row going off that caused uncontested scrums was as a result of a red card. Man off does not apply in this instance.

 

[Dixie]

Can someone explain why the man off rule did not apply?

3.14 (d) authorised a Union to adopt "man-off".

[LAWS]3.14(d) A provision may be introduced that where uncontested scrums are ordered as a result of there being no suitably trained and experienced front row replacement for any reason, the team concerned shall not be entitled to replace the player whose departure caused uncontested scrums.[/LAWS]

The RFU adopts that in Regulation 13.5.11(b), but only as regards L.3 and worse:

[LAWS](b) In League Matches at Levels 3 and below, Cup Matches and Play-Off Matches if on any occasion (other than a temporary blood injury) uncontested scrums are ordered by the Referee, in accordance with (a)(i) above, due to injury or consequent to a player being temporarily suspended or ordered off, the team concerned shall not be entitled to replace the player [/LAWS]

The Premiership and the International game, despite being the only places where the provision is warranted, are exempt. Disagree with Jacko about Man Off not applying to Red Card situations - it clearly does, as it mentions that when a FR player is ordered off OR temporarily suspended, that player cannot be replaced. But the effect is as Jacko describes, because the whole point about a Red Card is that you can't replace the player, whether he's FR or not.