[Scrum] Law 20 - Under 19 Variation

[Staffs_Ref]

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.

Coaches and referees disagreeing over interpretation of the laws of the game? ... Surely not?!

 

[Phil E]

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".

I read it as "you can't replace a person who is yellow carded (yes you can replace someone else, but you can't replace that particular person because he's not on the pitch to be replaced), so during that time it's 7v7."

If they wanted to say "not able to be replaced" why didn't they write that?

So not unusually, the clarification is not clear! Not for the first time.

 

[crossref]

My assessor.

I think your assessor confused himself..

in your scenario
- there was a RC, so you are playing 14 v 15, with seven in the scrum
- and now after a succession of injuries the team of 15 still have 15 players, but are unable to provide an STE front five.

So
- clearly we go uncontested
- of course there should still be seven in the scrum.

 

[crossref]

Coaches and referees disagreeing over interpretation of the laws of the game? ... Surely not?!

in this instance the clarifications/laws are poorly written and so the REFs disagree amongst themselves about what they mean.

in this case the best thing is to go with the flow, and ref by the settled convention

 

[Staffs_Ref]

I read it as "you can't replace a person who is yellow carded (yes you can replace someone else, but you can't replace that particular person because he's not on the pitch to be replaced), so during that time it's 7v7."

If they wanted to say "not able to be replaced" why didn't they write that?

So not unusually, the clarification is not clear! Not for the first time.

But by the same token, it would then also be saying that you were not allowed to replace a forward who had been forced to leave the field through injury - hence my belief that it can only be interpreted as "not able to" rather than "not allowed to".

As you say, not the first time that a "clarification" has lacked clarity.

 

[thepercy]

Yeah safety for sure, but if you got a big strong #8( and plays designed around using that player at scrum downs) and are not the offending side. Isnt it a shame to not be able to use those parts of your game because if an opponents errors/ penalty. Along the same Likes as defenders match the throwing sides numbers at lineouts should the sanctioned team have to match #s if it's not their put in. STE availability aside.

They are only slightly disadvantaged. Now, they have an extra big strong man-child in the back line. They may have to change their plan of attack.

 

[chbg]

I cannot believe that we are getting so tied up by a simple situation: if an Under 19 Team A loses one (or more) forward for what ever reason, they can replace him/her if they want to (substituting another player if YC or RC) and the match continues with full scrums. If they decide not to replace him/her, then their actions determine that Team B must match numbers in the scrum, without removing a player from the pitch.

The Variation drafting may not be exact enough for those finding fault with it (so what's new), but this is convention, certainly in my experience, and we should just get on with it (as normal). You may not like a penalised team determining the match procedure, but it is not for us to bring this type of moralistic approach to the game.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

I cannot believe that we are getting so tied up by a simple situation: if an Under 19 Team A loses one (or more) forward for what ever reason, they can replace him/her if they want to (substituting another player if YC or RC) and the match continues with full scrums. If they decide not to replace him/her, then their actions determine that Team B must match numbers in the scrum, without removing a player from the pitch.

The Variation drafting may not be exact enough for those finding fault with it (so what's new), but this is convention, certainly in my experience, and we should just get on with it (as normal). You may not like a penalised team determining the match procedure, but it is not for us to bring this type of moralistic approach to the game.

I think it is flippant to regard it as being 'tied up by a simple situation' and adopting a 'moralistic approach to the game'. Like many forum discussions it is prompted by the fact that the law is open to interpretation. Raising the matter on here allows all of us the opportunity to learn from the knowledge and experience of our colleagues.

There can be a narrow line between what is deemed to be "convention" and what is simply a "myth" that has developed over time. I have lost count of the amount of times that coaches have shouted things like "He has to let him up, ref!" or "They can't take the second one quickly, ref!" but that doesn't mean I am going apply those understandings of the laws of the game simply because a significant number of coaches and players (mistakenly) believe that I should.

Like the majority of queries on the forum this one has been raised as a result of occurring in a real match situation. There is every chance that it may well apply to myself and / or others again in the future. Personally, I value the input from others, so that I can either question or reaffirm my approach to such situations.

 

[crossref]

I agree - this is a very real world situation and it's not so simple : I have seen it cause conflict both watching and refereeing, as people don't have an entirely shared understanding of what the convention is, and reading the Laws doesn't help.

Even here on rugby refs we don't agree.

Scenario 1
Red forward receives a card.
Are Red allowed/required to shuffle postitions/replacements to maintain eight in the scrum? (assuming they can STE, etc)

- Staffs-Ref : according to his reading of the Law, the MUST do that (if they can)
- Phil-E : no they cannot, a forward has gone off, so it's 7 in the scrum
- crossref : in practice they can if they like. or not if they like

Scenario 2
Red #3 receives a card
At the next scrum a replacement STE prop comes on. Who must go off - a forward ? a back ? they can choose?

- Staffs-Ref : a back, to maintain eight in scrum
- Phil-E : a forward, as having YC a forward they can only have 7 forwards
- crossref : in practice whichever they like


chbg - you could add your views?

 

[DocY]

Like the majority of queries on the forum this one has been raised as a result of occurring in a real match situation. There is every chance that it may well apply to myself and / or others again in the future. Personally, I value the input from others, so that I can either question or reaffirm my approach to such situations.

This should go on the front page of this site!

 

[FlipFlop]

At a Rugby Europe Event (U18 European tournament) with WR ref manager, the message was clear:

Forward goes off, you play with 7 in the scrum. (and in 3,4,0 formation)
Back goes off, you play with 8 in the scrum.
No options, no choices.

The only time there might be a choice was if a FR was binned, and at the scrum, the replacement (to bring on a prop) was made. Take off a back, and play 8 in scrum, or take off a forward and play 7.

 

[crossref]

At a Rugby Europe Event (U18 European tournament) with WR ref manager, the message was clear:

Forward goes off, you play with 7 in the scrum. (and in 3,4,0 formation)
Back goes off, you play with 8 in the scrum.
No options, no choices.

fair enough ... but hang on, what's this ?

The only time there might be a choice was if a FR was binned, and at the scrum, the replacement (to bring on a prop) was made. Take off a back, and play 8 in scrum, or take off a forward and play 7.

Love it!
Not so clear after all!


So in that tournament, if a forward was sent off, and at the first scrum both teams present still with eight forwards ready to scrum, you would have made one of them from each team drop out and go stand in the backs?
Really?

(And anyway, the very fact that the WR Ref Manager needed to address this with all of you is because the Law isn't clear.)

 

[FlipFlop]

So in that tournament, if a forward was sent off, and at the first scrum both teams present still with eight forwards ready to scrum, you would have made one of them from each team drop out and go stand in the backs?
Really?

(And anyway, the very fact that the WR Ref Manager needed to address this with all of you is because the Law isn't clear.)

If a forward is sent off (not FR), the next scrum is 7.
If a FR is sent off, next scrum, go throught the FR replacement routine. If a back goes off, they have 8, if a forward goes off they have 7. If the FR replacement is already on the field, then if they come from the forwards, there are 7 in the scrum, and if from teh backs, they are 8.

If both teams present with 8, I'm making them drop to 7, unless the exception is met.

It was exaplined to all after incident on the field, and a coaching asking what his options were, and asking if a back could go into the scrum. Was told no.

 

[crossref]

If both teams present with 8, I'm making them drop to 7, unless the exception is met.

Fair enough. I wouldn't say you are necessarily wrong -- but I'd leave them both with 8 -- and IMO, I think the spirit and letter of the Law supports that.

[NB - of course if refereeing in a specific event like that I would always follow any ref-guidelines given to me on any topic, so reffing in that tournament, with the clear instructions given I'd follow them, of course]

 

[L'irlandais]

I am with flip flop on this. The laws this side of the channel are clearer. I believe it is because, while poorly written in English, when it came to translating, translators had to take a view on many unclear points of law. Yes this means that the interpretation is not identical to the original, but then folks rarely agree on how to interpret those particular points even in English.

 

[DocY]

Fair enough. I wouldn't say you are necessarily wrong -- but I'd leave them both with 8 -- and IMO, I think the spirit and letter of the Law supports that.

[NB - of course if refereeing in a specific event like that I would always follow any ref-guidelines given to me on any topic, so reffing in that tournament, with the clear instructions given I'd follow them, of course]

I'd struggle to justify sending two players away. Letting them scrummage with full packs would be both safe and fair, and I think telling them to each get rid of one player could undermine their confidence in you by coming across as a bit of a jobsworth.

Then in practice there'd be a delay in play while they decide who's going to drop out then get confused when two players from the same team drop out!

 

[Staffs_Ref]

At a Rugby Europe Event (U18 European tournament) with WR ref manager, the message was clear:

Forward goes off, you play with 7 in the scrum. (and in 3,4,0 formation)
Back goes off, you play with 8 in the scrum.
No options, no choices.

Even though I don't agree personally with this interpretation of the law, I have no issue with it being applied in this way providing it has been made clear to both teams (or all teams in the case of a tournament like this) beforehand that it will be applied in this way.

The only time there might be a choice was if a FR was binned, and at the scrum, the replacement (to bring on a prop) was made. Take off a back, and play 8 in scrum, or take off a forward and play 7.

However, to then add this exception is crazy. We might disagree on here about which way the law variation was intended to be interpreted, but this just looks like a "mix and match" of differing interpretations that ends up just being illogical and fails to tick any of the boxes.

 

[crossref]

I am with flip flop on this. The laws this side of the channel are clearer. I believe it is because, while poorly written in English, when it came to translating, translators had to take a view on many unclear points of law. Yes this means that the interpretation is not identical to the original, but then folks rarely agree on how to interpret those particular points even in English.

interesting!
How is the Law worded in French (and can you reverse-translate back to English?)

 

[crossref]

I'd struggle to justify sending two players away. Letting them scrummage with full packs would be both safe and fair, and I think telling them to each get rid of one player could undermine their confidence in you by coming across as a bit of a jobsworth.

Then in practice there'd be a delay in play while they decide who's going to drop out then get confused when two players from the same team drop out!

Yes it would be confusing.
I can imagine the coach would tell one of the flankers to drop out into the line
and they'd go down to bind 3-3-1 and then you'd tell them, no - you can't have a #8 you have to bind 3-4-0
so the #8 would drop out and beckon the #6 to come back
and the coach would shout - no, no, you idiots, get back - #6 to drop out #8 get back in there
and #8 would say 'but we're not allowed a #8'
and the cach would say 'get back in there'
and you'd say 'look, #8 it's OK, no, you can have whoever you like, but you can't bind as a #8' ..
and he'd look at you as if you were speaking greek..

and your assessor would be thinking bloody hell what a mess, just get on with it...

 

[Phil E]

Love it!
Not so clear after all!

Seems perfectly clear to me.
The exception is to avoid uncontested scrums where possible.