Man Off again. Again

[crossref]

So, given the RFU advice on the other thread , what's the answer to this simpler scenario.

L6 or below league game. Plenty of interchanges left.

- ten minutes into the game blue #15 receives a RC and blue are playing with 14 men.

- blue prop is then injured and leaves the field, and blue have no STE replacement for him, so scrums will have to be uncontested.

- are blue allowed to replace the prop with a non-STE player, and remain at 14 men ? Or not ?

Explain your reasoning with reference to the regulation and/or the advice from RFU Laws on the other scenario if you think that's relevant.

 

[TheBFG]

have they replaced a prop "at the first time of asking"?

 

[crossref]

does it make any difference ? If so what? I don't thnk it does, in respect of man-off, only in respect of league points/rules etc.

 

[Jacko]

does it make any difference ? If so what? I don't thnk it does, in respect of man-off, only in respect of league points/rules etc.

I agree.
My understanding is that if a player is leaving the field and that departure is causing uncontested scrums, the player cannot be replaced. There is nothing in the regulations that says this changes if they are already down a player due to cards.

In the OP, that will take them down to 13.

I had this exact scenario in the first season of man off applying. I allowed a sub to come on and was told I was wrong to.

 

[Phil E]

I agree.
My understanding is that if a player is leaving the field and that departure is causing uncontested scrums, the player cannot be replaced. There is nothing in the regulations that says this changes if they are already down a player due to cards.

In the OP, that will take them down to 13.

I had this exact scenario in the first season of man off applying. I allowed a sub to come on and was told I was wrong to.

The complication comes when you don't realise its the last fit prop when the sub takes place (why should you?).
Then five, or 20 minutes later you have your first scrum, realise its uncontested and have to make the sub go off. But you can't remember who it was, or he has since been subbed himself, so you have to get some random player to go off.

 

[crossref]

Agreed, but either way they end up at thirteen, right? Or does anyone disagree

 

[Jacko]

The complication comes when you don't realise its the last fit prop when the sub takes place (why should you?).
Then five, or 20 minutes later you have your first scrum, realise its uncontested and have to make the sub go off. But you can't remember who it was, or he has since been subbed himself, so you have to get some random player to go off.

Exactly how it transpired with me. But I have a 4th official, so should have done better. Fully agree it's a nightmare scenario when you're on your own.

 

[OB..]

I am rather glad that in Gloucestershire Leagues we don't use the man-off rule.

 

[TheBFG]

I am rather glad that in Gloucestershire Leagues we don't use the man-off rule.

But they do in L7 & 6 surely?

 

[Browner]

I agree.
My understanding is that if a player is leaving the field and that departure is causing uncontested scrums, the player cannot be replaced. There is nothing in the regulations that says this changes if they are already down a player due to cards.

In the OP, that will take them down to 13.

I had this exact scenario in the first season of man off applying. I allowed a sub to come on and was told I was wrong to.

As per MO in t'other thread.... 13 it is. Double cause = Double affect.

My easy way to remember this is to treat having to go to uncontesteds as a 'sanction' .... th4 x2 sanctions in place at the same time = x2 players absent at the same time.

 

[Browner]

The complication comes when you don't realise its the last fit prop when the sub takes place (why should you?).
Then five, or 20 minutes later you have your first scrum, realise its uncontested and have to make the sub go off. But you can't remember who it was, or he has since been subbed himself, so you have to get some random player to go off.

This has been my major point of learning from threads on this subject, I'll be noting interchange info/numbers/positions much more diligently, in future... Thanks RR.com members.

 

[TheBFG]

agree, something I learnt the hard way, I always make notes on FR replacements i.e. injured or Tech replacement :wink: it's the only one that really matters (I think?)

 

[crossref]

As per MO in t'other thread.... 13 it is. Double cause = Double affect.

My easy way to remember this is to treat having to go to uncontesteds as a 'sanction' .... th4 x2 sanctions in place at the same time = x2 players absent at the same time.

Browner I agree with your logic, but you are saying that you'll ignore the advice/instruction from RFU Laws on the other thread ? That's quite a big call.


On this scenario I think it's easy to see that blue end up with 13 players.
But it's hard to see why that wouldn't apply to the other scenario as well.

 

[Adam]

I am rather glad that in Gloucestershire Leagues we don't use the man-off rule.

Really? Will it not apply in RFU Tribute South West 1 West League?

 

[TheBFG]

Really? Will it not apply in RFU Tribute South West 1 West League?

No, it's only in levels 8 and below, your match will have MO rules!

 

[Browner]

Browner I agree with your logic, but you are saying that you'll ignore the advice/instruction from RFU Laws on the other thread ? That's quite a big call.


On this scenario I think it's easy to see that blue end up with 13 players.
But it's hard to see why that wouldn't apply to the other scenario as well.

IF the various "ask the expert" resources had a reply history of 100% accuracy ( even Sarefs.com & ask Ed get/got things wrong occasionally. ) , more interestingly nor did i see how the question was asked and nor am I convinced by the vagueness of reply.

If it comes out on an officially 'forensically scrutinised before publication' memo (secret or not) then I'm happy to amend, ....until then.

In any event, my referee coach and society trainer all agree 13 in that case, returning to 15, which is good enough for me (UFN)

 

[crossref]

fair enough.

(love you way you start by saying 'ask the expert' is pointless, but then go on to cite two experts you've asked...)

 

[Adam]

No, it's only in levels 8 and below, your match will have MO rules!

Thought my assessor wouldn't be able to pick up on any MO mistakes I make tomorrow!

 

[TheBFG]

fair enough.

(love you way you start by saying 'ask the expert' is pointless, but then go on to cite two experts you've asked...)

and there's the problem! it's as clear as mud.

 

[crossref]

update: I have asked an expert about this one, and received the opposite answer to Jacko's expert : no, they don't have to drop to 13. A replacement can come on.

which I guess proves Browner's point. Experts disagree, all we can do is read the regulations ourselves and make our own interpretation.