Glaws v Bath

[Jacko]

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.

Yeah - to clarify, there was talk originally that in the instance that occurred this weekend they would have to nominate another player to leave giving a double whammy effect. That was eventually rejected.

 

[Ian_Cook]

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.

But!

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling 3-2012

Union: IRFU
Law Reference: 3
Date: 15 November 2012
Request: The IRFU seeks urgent clarification on Law 3.14(d):

With the introduction of 23 player squads, is it the intention that Law 3.14(d) is applicable? We believe it should be applicable, as otherwise a team can still contrive to have uncontested scrums and still remain with 15 players.

Furthermore is 3.14(d) is not applied it raises complicated Law issues when all eight substitutes have been utilised.

Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
The Designated Members consider that the provisions of Law 3.14(d) should apply when 23 players are nominated for a match.

Law 3.14(d) states "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."

This would seem to indicate that NO level of the game is exempt, and that 3.14(d) MUST be applied of 23 man squads are in use.

 

[chbg]

But 3.14d only states that a provision "may be" introduced. RFU applies 3.14d, but introduces the provision only for L3 and below.

 

[Browner]

But 3.14d only states that a provision "may be" introduced. RFU applies 3.14d, but introduces the provision only for L3 and below.

Spot on, but its not me that you've gotta convince!

 

[Ian_Cook]

But 3.14d only states that a provision "may be" introduced. RFU applies 3.14d, but introduces the provision only for L3 and below.

I agree. However

"The Designated Members consider that the provisions of Law 3.14(d) should apply when 23 players are nominated for a match."

would seem to indicate that they expect "man off" to apply when 23 players are named in the playing squad

It also seems odd that they don't apply it to the levels where it is needed most!

 

[mike_fernlea]

Bath and Gloucester to submit reports questioning referee's actions

 

[Toby Warren]

Bath and Gloucester to submit reports questioning referee's actions

Classic muddying of the water, I'm sure (as sure as I can be with the RFU) that it'll be seen through.

 

[Biropen]

This is all classic stuff!!

Shift the blame onto the man in the middle. It was his fault. He committed the high tackles, he threw the punches at the end, none of the players did anything wrong. They are all innocent and did not behave like naughty schoolboys.

Lets cut through all this drivel.

How about this:
1. Each club is deducted 10 points for not controlling their players or their coaches.
2. Each player in the squad of each club on the day is fined one weeks wages.
That should focus the mind.

 

[Dixie]

But!

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling 3-2012

Union: IRFU
Law Reference: 3
Date: 15 November 2012
Request: The IRFU seeks urgent clarification on Law 3.14(d):

With the introduction of 23 player squads, is it the intention that Law 3.14(d) is applicable? We believe it should be applicable, as otherwise a team can still contrive to have uncontested scrums and still remain with 15 players.

Furthermore is 3.14(d) is not applied it raises complicated Law issues when all eight substitutes have been utilised.

Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
The Designated Members consider that the provisions of Law 3.14(d) should apply when 23 players are nominated for a match.

Law 3.14(d) states "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."

This would seem to indicate that NO level of the game is exempt, and that 3.14(d) MUST be applied of 23 man squads are in use.

No. This would seem to recognise that all of 3.14 is entitled Union Specific Variations, and so the iRB does not have jurisdiction. Nonetheless, they would like it to be known that in their view, if a squad of 23 is named, the Union organising the match really ought to exercise the option listed in 3.14(d). But they can't enforce it.

Slightly off topic, doesn't 3.14(b) mean that the Man-Off rule can only apply in games involving clubs governed by different Unions, and cannot legitimately apply in RFU-land to L.3 and below?

[LAWS]3.14(b) A Union or Unions, where a match or competition is played between teams from two or more Unions, may implement variations to Law 3.4 for matches below international level as set out in (c) and/or (d) below.[/LAWS]

There doesn't seem to be a similar permission granted for games where both participating teams are governed by the same Union.

 

[damo]

I have only just seen the highlights. Referee looked to be spot on with all the cards that I have seen.

There was an extremely dubious maul try given to Blue where the ball carrier is not only not bound, but allows players to bind in front of him effectively shielding him from the opposition, but that is standard fare it seems these days.

 

[OB..]

I have only just seen the highlights. Referee looked to be spot on with all the cards that I have seen

Even Austin Healy agreed, despite heavy criticism of the referee earlier.

There was an extremely dubious maul try given to Blue where the ball carrier is not only not bound, but allows players to bind in front of him effectively shielding him from the opposition, but that is standard fare it seems these days.

I'm afraid a requirement that the ball carrier should be fully bound at all times is unrealistic. He kept firm hold of a team-mate. That is probably all you can expect.

 

[Blackberry]

There was a time in rugby when we usually stood up and answered for what we had done.

Nowadays there are those who will try to save their skins by shotgun blasting innuendo and vague, misty, unexplained and unfounded complaints at innocent parties to protect their own tarnished hides.

 

[Phil E]

Well I finally watched the video. All of Wiggy's decisions looked spot on to me. How can you blame the referee for the players indiscipline? Its crazy.

I hope the RFU come out strong and supports the referee. In fact even if he was wrong (which he wasn't) they should support him.

 

[FlipFlop]

I see there are more citings.

Would also like to see an "investigation" into the game, followed by (if necessary) "bring the game into disrepute" charges against the clubs. With severe penalties - both "forfeit the game" involved, plus points deductions, plus fine.

And action against the coaches for their attacks on the referee (Match day bans & fines).

The RFU should hammer it home that this is not acceptable. With a sledgehammer....

 

[Browner]

I'm afraid a requirement that the ball carrier should be fully bound at all times is unrealistic. He kept firm hold of a team-mate. That is probably all you can expect.

Sorry OB, but I don't agree.
Mauls have almost become legally undefendable, since the practice of the BC slipping the binding and being squeezed out the back etc...

If you then allow the 'one handed tow/hitch (or even worse the hand shift position, to carry on) then the balance shifts even further away from a fair maul contest IMO.

In my mind I'll reluctantly allow the BC sliding out to the back of the maul, but as soon as he's lost a bonafide bind, then I'm shouting "Maul Over"

 

[mike_fernlea]

Can you guys see the game video on the Premiership rugby page
http://www.premiershiprugby.tv/LatestVideos?utm_source=latest&utm_medium=site&utm_campaign=dropdown
When I look at it, both the whole game and highlights links can't be viewed

 

[damo]

I'm afraid a requirement that the ball carrier should be fully bound at all times is unrealistic. He kept firm hold of a team-mate. That is probably all you can expect.

I agree that fully-bound is unrealistic. I disagree that his level of binding is sufficient.

 

[Biropen]

I see there are more citings.

Would also like to see an "investigation" into the game, followed by (if necessary) "bring the game into disrepute" charges against the clubs. With severe penalties - both "forfeit the game" involved, plus points deductions, plus fine.

And action against the coaches for their attacks on the referee (Match day bans & fines).

The RFU should hammer it home that this is not acceptable. With a sledgehammer....

Below information from the BBC Sport website:
A disciplinary hearing in London gave scrum-half Knoyle a four-week ban for striking Leroy Houston. Prop Puafisi received a one-week suspension after a dangerous tackle on Nick Abendanon.

Both players pleaded guilty, with Puafisa free to play again on 22 April and Knoyle on 20 May.
Knoyle's attack on Houston sparked a mass brawl following Bath's match-winning penalty try.

WOW!!! That will really focus the minds of the players as to their future conduct.

 

[Phil E]

A little bird told me that the technical analysis of the referees performance has shown him to have done a good job.
This has been shared and presented to the clubs and they have privately agreed and accepted the referee was not at fault.

What the clubs say in public and what they say in private are not the same thing.

 

[Daftmedic]

I'm of the opinion this chap and his hammer should be wielded against both clubs.



On a more serious note. Only 4 weeks for assault and causing an affray?
Even the CPS would look at a suspended sentence and bound over x months to keep the peace