Man off protocol

[Marc Wakeham]

The team choose.

 

[DocP]

Also, to make it a little murkier, if, as in your example, the hooker goes off with a hammy but there is only a prop on the bench, then as it is going to go uncontested the hooker must be replaced by the prop (a front row player) so not to give an advantage of going uncontested.

Now that begs the question. If the hooker goes off at a line out and they bring on a back row to replace him, at the next scrum do you force that fresh back row to leave the field for the prop on the bench and then drop another player for uncontested scrums or do you make that happen at the lineout with the initial replacement when technically the game is not at uncontested scrums.

 

[crossref]

Also, to make it a little murkier, if, as in your example, the hooker goes off with a hammy but there is only a prop on the bench, then as it is going to go uncontested the hooker must be replaced by the prop (a front row player) so not to give an advantage of going uncontested.

Now that begs the question. If the hooker goes off at a line out and they bring on a back row to replace him, at the next scrum do you force that fresh back row to leave the field for the prop on the bench and then drop another player for uncontested scrums or do you make that happen at the lineout with the initial replacement when technically the game is not at uncontested scrums.

Good one

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Also, to make it a little murkier, if, as in your example, the hooker goes off with a hammy but there is only a prop on the bench, then as it is going to go uncontested the hooker must be replaced by the prop (a front row player) so not to give an advantage of going uncontested.

Now that begs the question. If the hooker goes off at a line out and they bring on a back row to replace him, at the next scrum do you force that fresh back row to leave the field for the prop on the bench and then drop another player for uncontested scrums or do you make that happen at the lineout with the initial replacement when technically the game is not at uncontested scrums.

Law 3.18 requires a replacement of a FR player to be by a FR player unless no replacement is available. If a team replaces a FR player with a BR player you need to ask why they are not bringing on the Prop who is on the bench. If he is fit to play the Prop must come on fror the FR player.

 

[crossref]

Law 3.18 requires a replcement of a FR player to be by a FR player unless no replacement is available. If a team replaces a FR player with a BR player you need to ask why they are not bringing on the Prop who is on the bench. If he is fit to play the Prop must come on fror the FR player.

not really

3.18 Only when no replacement front-row player is available is any other player permitted to play in the front row.

you said above that 3.17 only applies when it actually comes to the scrum
so surely 3.18 only applies when it actually comes to a scrum?

seems to me there is only two logical answers
A - you sort everything out at the time of the replacement
B - they can make any replacement and then later you sort everything out at the time of the scrum

 

[Volun-selected]

possibly.
so in the scenario given - do you think A or B ?

Sorry, just circling back on this, but I’m leaning toward A.

If they have no replacements at all, then unless it was foul play they cannot bring on a tactical sub, so down to 14 by default.
If they have no STE then that asks the question of does it matter on the position prior to a scrum - ie. can you replace a hooker with a winger?
For the life of me I’m struggling to find where I may have read this but my understanding is you can only sub front row for front row - so again they put themselves down to 14.

Once the scrum is called, then we look at 3.18 etc. and have the 14-man scrum shenanigans

 

[DocP]

Law 3.18 requires a replcement of a FR player to be by a FR player unless no replacement is available. If a team replaces a FR player with a BR player you need to ask why they are not bringing on the Prop who is on the bench. If he is fit to play the Prop must come on fror the FR player.

OK, so that does clear that up for me I think. Hooker goes off at a L/O but (s)he is not allowed to be replaced by any old type of player. If they have a FR on the bench (s)he has to be replaced by them. Therefore it satisfies

3.18 Only when no replacement front-row player is available is any other player permitted to play in the front row.

as the front row is the front row whether it is contested scrums or not.

 

[crossref]

OK, so that does clear that up for me I think. Hooker goes off at a L/O but (s)he is not allowed to be replaced by any old type of player. If they have a FR on the bench (s)he has to be replaced by them. Therefore it satisfies

3.18 Only when no replacement front-row player is available is any other player permitted to play in the front row.

as the front row is the front row whether it is contested scrums or not.

so the FR comes on but only at next scrum does someone else goes off (to get down to 14) ?

 

[DocP]

so the FR comes on but only at next scrum does someone else goes off (to get down to 14) ?

Yeah, that's the way I have it in my head now. Hooker is replaced at L/O but must be by a FR if available. Then at scrum it is announced that they have to go to uncontested as have 3 props and no specialised hooker. Someone must then go off to be at 14 but not one of the FR as only FR can be there if they are available. Can be a back but as it is uncontested they must have 8 in the scrum.
Think I have that straight in my head now but everytime it crops up it confuses me. Even the matrix took me ages to get my head around with the "first time of asking" statement. Just a way of saying, do you have any FR (position specific) replacements.

 

[didds]

heres a chopperesque scenario...

1 minute left to play, red is down by 4 points. Their prop gets injured so they swap him for ... a winger that can run REALLY fast and swerve and evade tackles and stuff (think Van de Meuwe !).

Why not a prop?

Cos with 1 minute to go they figure/risk there will be no more scrums, so don't need a prop. But the use of a speedy and swervy runner could bring about the try to win the game.

Why should red be prevented from such a tactical choice ~?

Which then brings us to the scenario of red - with a full set of speedy subs available - swapping out their entire front row for three speedy players with 1 minute to go.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

 

[crossref]

@didds it is rather chopperesque to pose a far-fetched scenario without at least first offerering an answer to everyday OP scenario

 

[Volun-selected]

1 minute left to play, red is down by 4 points. Their prop gets injured so they swap him for ... a winger that can run REALLY fast and swerve and evade tackles and stuff (think Van de Meuwe !).

Why not a prop?

This is the bit that's bugging the life out of me. I know we have 3.18 - but that's under Uncontested Scrums, so to your question - Can I sub any position for any position - or only outside of Front Row? (Even then, imagine your example with some skinny winger subbed in for a Lock and a scrum is called. They're really going to miss their ears.)

Back to 3.18:

3.18 Only when no replacement front-row player is available is any other player permitted to play in the front row.

Is this a general statement or is it specific to this section and so will just apply once the next scrum is called?

If it applies generally - then I'd read it as "at any point in the match, if you have an STE available then you must use them first to replace a Front Row player". If no STE are left (all are either binned or broken) then any available non-STE player can replace. But... come the next scrum they are now Front Row for Uncontested Scrums and unless a Head Injury or Foul Play was involved you're going to nominate someone else and play with 14.

Now to make this even murkier... Red vs Blue, each with 3 Front Row STEs.
Original Red Hooker taken off after 10 mins due to a high tackle which you deemed as Foul Play. First STE comes on for Red.
Attritional match, and by 60 mins both original props are off broken for Red. Both replaced by STEs; Red has no more STEs.
70 mins, replacement Red Hooker who came on after 10 mins hobbles off after they blow their knee missing a tackle.

Red Captain comes up and asks "OK, we're out of front row players, but if Blue hadn't taken out out Hooker we'd still have one remaining replacement left. Can we use our replacement Winger to make up the numbers but remain at 15 when we go uncontested?"

Do the head injury and foul play exceptions last for the match, or just apply if they occurred in the last event?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

not really


you said above that 3.17 only applies when it actually comes to the scrum
so surely 3.18 only applies when it actually comes to a scrum?

3.18 clearly refers to who may replace a FR forward. It is not about man off.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

OK, so that does clear that up for me I think. Hooker goes off at a L/O but (s)he is not allowed to be replaced by any old type of player. If they have a FR on the bench (s)he has to be replaced by them. Therefore it satisfies

3.18 Only when no replacement front-row player is available is any other player permitted to play in the front row.

as the front row is the front row whether it is contested scrums or not.

Spot on!

 

[Marc Wakeham]

heres a chopperesque scenario...

1 minute left to play, red is down by 4 points. Their prop gets injured so they swap him for ... a winger that can run REALLY fast and swerve and evade tackles and stuff (think Van de Meuwe !).

Why not a prop?

Cos with 1 minute to go they figure/risk there will be no more scrums, so don't need a prop. But the use of a speedy and swervy runner could bring about the try to win the game.

Why should red be prevented from such a tactical choice ~?

Which then brings us to the scenario of red - with a full set of speedy subs available - swapping out their entire front row for three speedy players with 1 minute to go.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

Because 3.18 says they can't.

 

[didds]

@didds it is rather chopperesque to pose a far-fetched scenario without at least first offerering an answer to everyday OP scenario

Thats a fair comment. Though I would say I dont get this man off thijng at all. The more I read of what you guys patiently explain, the less I get it.
I cant get my head around basically that you get different solutions dependant of which of an accidental replacement and a forced replacement occur first. that's basically stupid. After that nothing makes any sense.


My daft suggestion is based on pure tactics. If you aren't going to have a scrum why do you have to have a prop?

 

[didds]

Because 3.18 says they can't.

indeed.
I meant it as a more philosophical point TBH, albeit somewhat a facetious one. Not aimed at you guys, just at the over all concept of substitutions. If you aren't going to have a scrum, why have a prop? Its up for debate, that's all ;-)

 

[crossref]

Because 3.18 says they can't.

but by your own logic you don't enforce 3.18 until and unless a scrum occurs?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

but by your own logic you don't enforce 3.18 until and unless a scrum oc

3.18 is about who can replace a FR player not about STE issues. So not that is not the logic at all. A FR player must be replaced by a FR player (whether or not the player can maintin contested scrums ). 3.16 and 3.17 are about contested scrums.

indeed.
I meant it as a more philosophical point TBH, albeit somewhat a facetious one. Not aimed at you guys, just at the over all concept of substitutions. If you aren't going to have a scrum, why have a prop? Its up for debate, that's all ;-)

I was btrought in because sides were putting in flankers ahead of FR causing what they considered to be an unfair situation. But , as I say. I just deal with the law not what I'd like it to be.

 

[crossref]

@Marc Wakeham
I think you have confused yourself

17 is about replacements .. but you are applying it retrospectively at scrum time

18 is about scrums but you are applying it prospectively (looking forwards) at replacement time

16 when a front-row player leaves the playing area, whether through injury or temporary or permanent suspension, the referee enquires at the next scrum 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 orders uncontested scrums. If the player returns or another front-row player comes on, then contested scrums may resume.

17. In a squad of 23 players or at the discretion of the match organiser, a player whose departure has caused the referee to order uncontested scrums cannot be replaced.

18. Only when no replacement front-row player is available is any other player permitted to play in the front row.