Man Off again. Again

[crossref]

(MSF))

 

[Blackberry]

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.

Here's a thought, what do we do if....
The last fit prop is subbed, unbeknown to us, and we only find out some (say) 5 minutes later at the next scrum. For those 5 minutes, haven't the team had on one player too many? Is it OK for them to have the extra player on till the next scrum occurs?

Its never happened to me (well, not yet) but only because I ask at the point of each FR interchange "Are we still uncontested / contested?" Its a fail safe.

 

[Jacko]

Here's a thought, what do we do if....
The last fit prop is subbed, unbeknown to us, and we only find out some (say) 5 minutes later at the next scrum. For those 5 minutes, haven't the team had on one player too many? Is it OK for them to have the extra player on till the next scrum occurs?

Its never happened to me (well, not yet) but only because I ask at the point of each FR interchange "Are we still uncontested / contested?" Its a fail safe.

Our guidance a couple of years back was:- Ideally check so it doesn't happen. If you find out at next scrum, then tell the sub who shouldn't be on to leave.

 

[OB..]

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

But they do in L7 & 6 surely?

I specified Gloucestershire Leagues, which go up to L8. Presumably it does apply at L7 and L6, but the point has never arisen in any games I have been at.

 

[OB..]

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

That is not a Gloucestershire League - it includes teams from other counties.

 

[Browner]

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

I didn't say it was pointless crossref, i implied it isn't 'watertight' , my reference personnel are only to ensure 'loca'l consistency. Ultimately its local society that will deal with any concerns raised by clubs.....but I guess you knew this.

 

[Browner]

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.

The notion that you can avoid 'man off' consequences, simply by having one of you players already receiving a sanction, is quite Franky daft IMO.

 

[crossref]

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

I didn't say it was pointless crossref, i implied it isn't 'watertight' , my reference personnel are only to ensure 'loca'l consistency. Ultimately its local society that will deal with any concerns raised by clubs.....but I guess you knew this.

I would be very surprised if you have consensus in your society

 

[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.

The notion that you can avoid 'man off' consequences, simply by having one of you players already receiving a sanction, is quite Franky daft IMO.

And yet that was the advice from the RFU. ..
It's not what the regulation says, but must be what they wanted

 

[Browner]

I would be very surprised if you have consensus in your society

Ha ha , I doubt it from all referees either, but at least if the Training Officer is consistent in his message.