Marc Wakeham
Referees in Wales
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2018
- Messages
- 2,779
- Post Likes
- 842
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
The team choose.
Good oneAlso, 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.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.
not reallyLaw 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.
3.18 Only when no replacement front-row player is available is any other player permitted to play in the front row.
possibly.
so in the scenario given - do you think A or B ?
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.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.
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.so the FR comes on but only at next scrum does someone else goes off (to get down to 14) ?
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.)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?
3.18 clearly refers to who may replace a FR forward. It is not about man off.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?
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.
Because 3.18 says they can't.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?
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.@didds it is rather chopperesque to pose a far-fetched scenario without at least first offerering an answer to everyday OP scenario
indeed.Because 3.18 says they can't.
but by your own logic you don't enforce 3.18 until and unless a scrum occurs?Because 3.18 says they can't.
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.but by your own logic you don't enforce 3.18 until and unless a scrum oc
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.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 ;-)
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.