[Scrum] Law 20 - Under 19 Variation

[crossref]

[laws]...Even allowing for this exception, each team must always have at least five players in a scrum.
If a team is incomplete and it cannot field eight suitably trained players in its scrum, the scrum formation must be as follows:
If a team is without one forward player, then both teams must use a 3-4 formation (i.e. no No.8).
If a team is without two forward players, then both teams must use a 3-2-1 formation (i.e. no flankers).
If a team is without three forward players, then both teams must use a 3-2 formation (i.e. only front rows and locks).
When a normal scrum takes place, the players in the three front row positions and the two lock positions must have been suitably trained for these positions.[/laws] I must go back for a more thorough read of the variations on uncontested.

matching numbers in scrums is NOT about being uncontested - at U19 and below numbers are always matched, whether contested or uncontested.

 

[crossref]

The laws make no sense because there is a NEVER a scenario where a team absolutely CANNOT provide eight players in the scrum.

1) if the scrums are contested anyone can play in the back row - you don't have to be STE to play back row. (OR if a team really don't feel this is safe, then fine, safety first, call uncontested scrums and ....

2) if scrums are uncontested then NO ONE has to be STE for any position, so both teams always can put eight in the scrum.



So the Law, with its reference to CANNOT is meaningless , and we are left with convention.

The convention is that if you card a forward you play with seven forwards, if you card a back you play with eight forwards. [and no doubt this is what the law makers meant to say.. ]

If a team wants to break the convention then the ref has to decide what's within the spirit of the game:

So for instance if I YC a forward I would always allow a team to shuffle positions/replacements in order to maintain eight in the scrum, if they want to (but not to chop/change from scrum to scrum)

but I if I YC a back, I wouldn't allow them to shuffle players/positons in order to deliberately reduce to scrum to seven.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

The laws make no sense because there is a NEVER a scenario where a team absolutely CANNOT provide eight players in the scrum.

1) if the scrums are contested anyone can play in the back row - you don't have to be STE to play back row. (OR if a team really don't feel this is safe, then fine, safety first, call uncontested scrums and ....

2) if scrums are uncontested then NO ONE has to be STE for any position, so both teams always can put eight in the scrum.



So the Law, with its reference to CANNOT is meaningless , and we are left with convention.

The convention is that if you card a forward you play with seven forwards, if you card a back you play with eight forwards. [and no doubt this is what the law makers meant to say.. ]

If a team wants to break the convention then the ref has to decide what's within the spirit of the game:

So for instance if I YC a forward I would always allow a team to shuffle positions/replacements in order to maintain eight in the scrum, if they want to (but not to chop/change from scrum to scrum)

but I if I YC a back, I wouldn't allow them to shuffle players/positons in order to deliberately reduce to scrum to seven.

The law makes specific reference to 'eight suitably trained players' rather than just 'eight players', so that does become a situation which can quite easily arise in a variety of ways.

The scenario you refer to in the last paragraph was, if I recall correctly, the very reason why the original variation of this law was rewritten. Teams who had lost a back to the bin and were thus reduced to 14 were were claiming that they were now "incomplete" and were entitled to drop to 7 in the scrum (and thereby force their opposition to do the same) rather than be short and exposed in the back line. This tactic led first of all to a "clarification" and then subsequently this rewriting of the law variation, which is still poorly phrased.

 

[crossref]

The law makes specific reference to 'eight suitably trained players' rather than just 'eight players', so that does become a situation which can quite easily arise in a variety of ways.
.

NO - eight suitably trained players are only needed for a contested scrum.

if you really don't have eight suitably trained players (either on the field or on the sideline) then we call uncontested scrums and - hey presto - now you can put eight in.

both teams can ALWAYS put eight players in the scrum, because if you don't have enough players for a contested scrum, we'll have an uncontested one.

Think about the front row, which is exactly the same, but more familiar to us - At all levels of the game, in any match both teams can ALWAYS put three players in the front row (because if you don't have enough STE players for a contested scrum, we have an uncontested one, and anyone can be in the front row for an uncontested scrum)

 

[Staffs_Ref]

NO - eight suitably trained players are only needed for a contested scrum.

Apologies if I had misinterpreted, but I was working under the assumption that we were talking about a contested scrum scenario, which there will always be providing each team has at least 5 STE players available (specifically STE for front 5). There can still be quite easily a situation where one of the teams could not provide 8 STE players and where a contested scrum would be taking place.

 

[crossref]

Apologies if I had misinterpreted, but I was working under the assumption that we were talking about a contested scrum scenario, which there will always be providing each team has at least 5 STE players available (specifically STE for front 5). There can still be quite easily a situation where one of the teams could not provide 8 STE players and where a contested scrum would be taking place.

let's say they have
- 15 players
- a front five who are all STE
- but only two players prepared to be in the back row...


Then you'd sigh with frustration as the coach is clearly arsing about. But safety always comes first and you'd take the coach at face value and you would call uncontested scrums and still have eight in the scrum.

Now if you YC the #15, so that you have 14 on the pitch it doesn't change anything.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

A more likely scenario might be that one side turns up with a bare 15 and then lose a back row player to injury.

The point I was really drawing attention to in my earlier post was that the loss of a forward player to the bin should not automatically trigger 7-a-side scrums if other STE players are available and 8-a-side scrums can be maintained via an interchange.

 

[crossref]

A more likely scenario might be that one side turns up with a bare 15 and then lose a back row player to injury..

yes, agreed in this scenario the convention is that because it's a forward who has gone off and can't be replaced, we play with seven forwards (Although, if the team wanted to move a back in to the scrum and play with eight, then of course they could. So they get the choice)

The point I was really drawing attention to in my earlier post was that the loss of a forward player to the bin should not automatically trigger 7-a-side scrums if other STE players are available and 8-a-side scrums can be maintained via an interchange.

I agree with this, but the widespread convention (and perhaps the intention of the Law makers, who knows) is that when a forward is binned we DO play with 7 in the scrum, even when it's perfectly possible for the team to shuffle positions/replacements to allow them to have eight.

In practice again they get a choice of 7 or 8 : most refs would allow them to do the necessary shuffling if they want to (I certainly would) but wouldn't try and compel them.

 

[Phil E]

The point I was really drawing attention to in my earlier post was that the loss of a forward player to the bin should not automatically trigger 7-a-side scrums if other STE players are available and 8-a-side scrums can be maintained via an interchange.

There was a clarification about this a couple of years or so ago. The reference in the laws to the "team" means (in this instance) the team of 8 for the scrum (it doesn't refer to the whole team of 15). So if a team loses a forward both teams MUST play with 7v7 in the scrums. You can't bring in a back to the scrum.

[LAWS]Clarification 6 2009

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling6-2009
Union / HP Ref ManagerARU
Law Reference20
Date10 August 2009
This Clarification was incorporated into Law in 2009

Request
1. The U19 Law Variation refers to a team having fewer than eight players in its scrum when “…the team cannot field a complete team, or a player sent off for Foul Play, or a player leaves the field because of injury.” Does this Law Variation also apply if a player is cautioned and temporarily suspended (yellow card)?

2. The U19 law Variation refers to both teams using reduced numbers of players in the scrum formation if “…a team is incomplete…” because it is without one, two or three players. No distinction is made between forward players and back players. If a No. 15 is sent off early in a match, must both teams play with seven players in the scrum, even though both teams still have eight players suitably trained and capable of playing in the scrum?

3. If a team cannot field a complete team because it is short one or more forward player, but that team is able to provide form the available players suitably trained players to contest scrums, may the game proceed/continue with eight player scrums per team?

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
The complete team is a reference to having eight players who can play in the scrum. If a forward leaves the field of play for any reason and cannot be replaced due to injury, sending off, temporary suspension or any other reason then both teams must reduce the number of players in the scrum so that there are equal numbers in both teams at the scrum.

If any player in the other than a forward has to leave the field for any reason and cannot be replaced there will be no reduction in the players playing in the scrum.
[/LAWS]

 

[crossref]

You can't bring in a back to the scrum.

depends on the back - there are plenty of players who are capable of (and experienced in) playing in both backs or forwards.

indeed one of the big thrusts of the NROP is to produce all-round rugby players capable of playing many roles, and not specialising unnecessarily.

 

[merge]

If a team has a prop yellow carded and they are still in the bin when the next scrum is called for with a STE player on the bench, would you insist that a back makes way for the other prop to come on for contested scrums (and hence have 8 man scrums) or allow a back row player to do so (reducing to 7 in scrums)?

 

[Staffs_Ref]

There was a clarification about this a couple of years or so ago. The reference in the laws to the "team" means (in this instance) the team of 8 for the scrum (it doesn't refer to the whole team of 15). So if a team loses a forward both teams MUST play with 7v7 in the scrums. You can't bring in a back to the scrum.

Yes, Phil. That is the clarification that I was referring to, which subsequently led to the rewriting of the law variation in its current form.

 

[crossref]

If a team has a prop yellow carded and they are still in the bin when the next scrum is called for with a STE player on the bench, would you insist that a back makes way for the other prop to come on for contested scrums (and hence have 8 man scrums) or allow a back row player to do so (reducing to 7 in scrums)?

for me..
1) I'd definitely expect them to bring on the STE prop

2) I'd let them take off whoever they liked. If they took off a forward we'd play seven in the scrum, if they took off a back we'd have eight.

The Laws as written would seem to suggest they should take off a back, as they CAN have eight forwards, so they should do so
But overwhelming convention is that if you lose a forward to a YC then you normally play with 7 in scrum, I'm not going to buck that trend

 

[Staffs_Ref]

If a team has a prop yellow carded and they are still in the bin when the next scrum is called for with a STE player on the bench, would you insist that a back makes way for the other prop to come on for contested scrums (and hence have 8 man scrums) or allow a back row player to do so (reducing to 7 in scrums)?

Personally, that is what I believe should happen. I also believe that is what should happen regardless of which forward position is affected ... provided, of course, that the replacement meets the relevant STE criteria for that position. I would suggest that it is best to cover this expectation during the pre-match briefing, so that it did not become a potentially contentious issue during the match.

 

[crossref]

I would suggest that it is best to cover this expectation during the pre-match briefing, so that it did not become a potentially contentious issue during the match.

I absolutely think you are technically correct.

but it would be a contentious pre-match briefing, a conflict with coaches over a hypothetical issue that is unlikely to happen anyway. They may well be absolutely certain that you are wrong in Law, and in the position of having to defer to you anyway as you are the ref, so will not be happy. And it most likely won't happen! So I def wouldn't advise starting off the day like that.

It's a very very strong convention that if a forward goes off, we normally play with 7.. Many people interpret the Law to mean that you HAVE to play with 7. I'd just go with the flow....

 

[Phil E]

indeed one of the big thrusts of the NROP is to produce all-round rugby players capable of playing many roles, and not specialising unnecessarily.

Not even remotely relevant to this discussion as U19 laws don't apply to NROP games. The reason at that age is not to pigeon-hole players into positions before they have fully developed.

Even so the clarification would suggest if you card a forward (for instance) you can't replace him.

[LAWS]If a forward leaves the field of play for any reason and cannot be replaced due to injury, sending off, temporary suspension or any other reason then both teams must reduce the number of players in the scrum so that there are equal numbers in both teams at the scrum.[/LAWS]

 

[Staffs_Ref]

If a forward leaves the field of play for any reason and cannot be replaced due to injury, sending off, temporary suspension or any other reason then both teams must reduce the number of players in the scrum so that there are equal numbers in both teams at the scrum.[/LAWS]

That isn't how the clarification reads to me. To me the clarification suggests that to be the course of action only if the player cannot be replaced - as in "not able to be replaced" rather than "not allowed to be replaced".

 

[Pegleg]

Who told you that you were wrong to do that? Why on earth would you go 6 v 6 uncontested when you can quite legitimately go 7 v 7 uncontested?

My assessor.

 

[Pegleg]

Even so the clarification would suggest if you card a forward (for instance) you can't replace him.

[LAWS]If a forward leaves the field of play for any reason and cannot be replaced due to injury, sending off, temporary suspension or any other reason then both teams must reduce the number of players in the scrum so that there are equal numbers in both teams at the scrum.[/LAWS]

I don't agree. It say "If and cannot". Not "If and must not".

There could I read that as if a player leaves the field and he can be replaced (suitably) then do so.

 

[crossref]

Even so the clarification would suggest if you card a forward (for instance) you can't replace him.

[LAWS]If a forward leaves the field of play for any reason and cannot be replaced due to injury, sending off, temporary suspension or any other reason then both teams must reduce the number of players in the scrum so that there are equal numbers in both teams at the scrum.[/LAWS]

it doesn't say that at all!

it says that IF you cannot replace him .. then you play with seven forwards.