[Law] Lock in sin bin, uncontested scrums? Law#3

[Huck2Spit]

Gave a YC to home team's lock near the 35minute mark. Didn't have another scrum before the break. At half time their coach approached me about sitting their fullback in the bin and substitute in another lock. I told him that's only allowable for the front three being suspended and if no one else can lock we'll have to go uncontested untill the binned player returned. He busted my balls about tight five needing to be trained, as per the front row, and safety. ...
I told to train more locks then but scrums are uncontested the--thems the rules.
By chance, no scrums were awarded in second half scrum before YC player returned, so no issue.
Did I handle this correctly? My memory of law seems clear but that law has changed for 2016 and I've not seen the new book.

 

[TigerCraig]

Gave a YC to home team's lock near the 35minute mark. Didn't have another scrum before the break. At half time their coach approached me about sitting their fullback in the bin and substitute in another lock. I told him that's only allowable for the front three being suspended and if no one else can lock we'll have to go uncontested untill the binned player returned. He busted my balls about tight five needing to be trained, as per the front row, and safety. ...
I told to train more locks then but scrums are uncontested the--thems the rules.
By chance, no scrums were awarded in second half scrum before YC player returned, so no issue.
Did I handle this correctly? My memory of law seems clear but that law has changed for 2016 and I've not seen the new book.

Law 3.6 (f) specifies "front row player"

(f) If, as a result of a front row player being temporarily suspended, another player has to be nominated by the team to leave the playing area to enable an available front row player to come on, the nominated player may not return until the period of suspension ends.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I've never heard of a requirement for STE lock... it that a thing in some places or grades?

Otherwise, AFAIC, if you're missing a lock in the bin, then someone else, usually a flanker has to play lock, and you either have 7 in the scrum or you put a back on the side.

 

[pwhaling]

There is a U19 variation requiring the tight 5 to be STE:

20.1(E): (Skipped lots of stuff)
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.
If a team cannot field such suitably trained players because:
either they are not available, or
a player in one of those five positions is injured or
has been sent off for Foul Play and no suitably trained replacement is available, then the referee must order uncontested scrums.

 

[Pegleg]

STE Second rows only apply at U 19 level. As such the extention of replacing the FR to the front five is totally logical - if not clear in the writing of the laws. So, for me, the answer to the OP depends on the age of the game: Youth and the coach is right. Senior and he is using "coachspeak".

 

[Pegleg]

I told to train more locks then but scrums are uncontested the--thems the rules.

I'd caution against using that line.

 

[crossref]

Isnt it the case of that he HAS to make the substitution needed if that's the only way to maintain contested scrums.
Generally speaking you are required to maintain contested scrums for as long as you have players available.
So I think, having said it's the only way to remain safe, rather than being able to force uncontested scrums he has to bring on his lock, even though it is, under the rules, a non reversible substitution.

(interchanges are much better, aren't they?)

 

[Pegleg]

Can you support that in Law?

The following is very specificly referencing only the Front Row (youth does have a variation of course as mentioned above)

3.6 UNCONTESTED SCRUMS
(a) Scrums will become uncontested if either team cannot field a suitably trained front row or if
the referee so orders.

(c) When a front row player leaves the playing area, whether through injury or temporary or
permanent suspension, the referee will enquire at that time whether the team can continue
with contested scrums. If the referee is informed that the team will not be able to contest
the scrum then the referee will order uncontested scrums. If the player returns or another
front row player comes on then contested scrums may resume.

(e) If they are available, a team must have three front row players in the front row at all times.
In an uncontested scrum, only when there is no available front row replacement or
substitute is any other player permitted to play in the front row.

(f) If, as a result of a front row player being temporarily suspended, another player has to be
nominated by the team to leave the playing area to enable an available front row player to
come on, the nominated player may not return until the period of suspension ends.

(g) If, as a result of a front row player being sent off, another player has to be nominated by the
team to leave the playing area to enable an available front row player to come on, the
nominated player may act as a replacement/substitute.

 

[Pegleg]

That said the side can always elect to make a standrd subsitution. As you say but hyou'd need to make it very clear that it is a permanent replacement.

 

[crossref]

Can you support that in Law?

not exactly- but by convention.

Leave aside the lock question, let's have a much simpler scenario
- blue prop receives a YC.
- they have a replacement prop on the side
- but at the first scrum they decline to make the necessary substitution to bring him on the field, saying they prefer to play with uncontested scrums for the duration

what would you do ? I don't think there is a Law specifically saying they have to bring him on, but all convention would seem to suggest they must. It would certainly be unusual to decline to.


It's an interesting one, but probably not for a referee to sort out, more one for the competition panel

As a referee there's not much you can do
- clearly you can't point at a player on touchline and physically compel him to come on and play
- clearly if one team declare themselves unsafe to scrummage you are going to have to declare uncontested scrums

You could, I suppose, abandon the game, but that would seem a bit OTT.

 

[Pegleg]

The scenarios are very different.

You cannot compel a team to scrummage. THEY and only they can say that they are STE. As you say that is for the league / district or whatever to sort. Of course if they have not provided sutable replacements then law deals with that too.

In the scenario we are discussing the question is; "Can they legally make a temporary sustitution that is not covered in law?" If you allow it and they win then the losers will soon be contacting the organisers.

It's probably best not to try and confuse the debate with an unrelated (polar opposite) issue.

 

[crossref]

The scenarios are very different.

You cannot compel a team to scrummage. THEY and only they can say that they are STE. As you say that is for the league / district or whatever to sort. Of course if they have not provided sutable replacements then law deals with that too.

In the scenario we are discussing the question is; "Can they legally make a temporary sustitution that is not covered in law?" If you allow it and they win then the losers will soon be contacting the organisers.

It's probably best not to try and confuse the debate with an unrelated (polar opposite) issue.

they are very related!
in the OP they said if they couldn't make a temporary substitution (and we all agree they can't) , then they would make no substitution at all, and force uncontested.

So I am asking : is it OK to decline to make a substition (temp or permanent) forcing uncontested, when by own admission they actually have a STE player on the bench.

 

[Ian_Cook]

- blue prop receives a YC.
- they have a replacement prop on the side
- but at the first scrum they decline to make the necessary substitution to bring him on the field, saying they prefer to play with uncontested scrums for the duration

[LAWS]3.6 UNCONTESTED SCRUMS
(e) If they are available, a team must have three front row players in the front row at all times.
In an uncontested scrum, only when there is no available front row replacement or
substitute is any other player permitted to play in the front row.
[/LAWS]

They cannot decide to simply not bring on an STE player if they have one. There are a couple of possible courses of action

1. PK them under 10.4 (m)

2. Man-off, make them play with 13 players (will depend on competition regs)

3. Play on with uncontested scrums. Report he incident in your match report (in NZ, a team which tried this on would in all likelihood be docked Table points.

 

[crossref]

[LAWS]3.6 UNCONTESTED SCRUMS
(e) If they are available, a team must have three front row players in the front row at all times.
In an uncontested scrum, only when there is no available front row replacement or
substitute is any other player permitted to play in the front row.
[/LAWS]

They cannot decide to simply not bring on an STE player if they have one. There are a couple of possible courses of action

1. PK them under 10.4 (m)

2. Man-off, make them play with 13 players (will depend on competition regs)

3. Play on with uncontested scrums. Report he incident in your match report (in NZ, a team which tried this on would in all likelihood be docked Table points.

1 & 3 are the same : just with an extra PK
2 I don't think is possible

 

[Rich_NL]

The law talks about "if a team cannot field an STE front row" and "if the team is not able to contest" - and, most convincingly
"If they are available, a team must have three front row players in the front row at all times."

So they don't have the choice to not bring the substitute on. The only problem is that there's no sanction attached... I suppose you could improvise and offer the opposition a penalty kick at every scrum, of course, or offer the substitute player a red card for unsporting behaviour so they get their uncontested scrums

As for a lock (and speaking as a lock), if it was an adult game the coach was just shooting his mouth off. Almost every no 8 and most flankers can fill in there, there's no special training or neck injury risk as for the front row.