Man off ruling - Sorry to dig this one up again

[Jacko]

We've had a logic tree from RFU which clarifies that if a FR player recovers from a minor injury and is ok to go back on and make scrums contested again, they are fine to return and the side is restored to 15.

 

[crossref]

We've had a logic tree from RFU which clarifies that if a FR player recovers from a minor injury and is ok to go back on and make scrums contested again, they are fine to return and the side is restored to 15.

different scenario : in this scenario the injured player hasn't recovered.

 

[TheBFG]

different scenario : in this scenario the injured player hasn't recovered.

but do they have 3 STE FR players, if so, back to 15, if not 14 and uncontested as I see it?

 

[Browner]

We've had a logic tree from RFU which clarifies that if a FR player recovers from a minor injury and is ok to go back on and make scrums contested again, they are fine to return and the side is restored to 15.

Surely any non STE player who is so badly concussed and then comes back onto the pitch too early 'devoid' of the ability to speak coherently , now qualifies as a ' new' front row forward ....

Just joking stumpy & co .... Luv ya all really ..x

 

[Browner]

so browner you would take them down to 13, and then when the YC prop comes back on you'd resume contested scrums, but leave them at 14.

No, down to 13 then return to 15.
I've not said differently.

 

[Dixie]

Re: bold above

I don't read it in the same way as you Dixie.
I'm reading, "any occassion​" and for " any other reason" as not having the limitation you suggest , any FR (STE) player returning can rectify.

The additional consequence of YC/RC disciplinary action 'beyond' the man off provision, must be expected, it makes sense.

I'm afraid your reading of the two underlined words does not make sense. You could take this clause:

... if on any occasion uncontested scrums are ordered by the Referee, in accordance with (a)(i) above, due to injury (including a temporary blood injury) or consequent to a Player being temporarily suspended or ordered off or for any other reason, the team concerned shall not be entitled to replace the Player whose departure caused the uncontested scrum.

and re-write it as follows without changing its meaning in the slightest:

... if uncontested scrums are ordered by the Referee for any reason, the team concerned shall not be entitled to replace the Player whose departure caused the uncontested scrum.

It is clear that the occasion mentioned is a situation when a ref declares scrums to be uncontested, and the any other reason is just a way of ensuring that the list spouted before that term is understood not to be exhaustive. Those underlined terms, far from having any limitation, are all-encompassing and without limitation - but they do not in any way address what happens when the FR player who caused uncontested scrums by leaving the field returns. That situation is addressed only by the sentence that says:

[LAWS]On the return to the field of a front row Player who has been temporarily excluded the Match shall continue with contested scrums provided it is safe to do so.[/LAWS] It is this sentence that is defective, as it clearly means something other than what it says. But we don't know what it really means.

 

[Dixie]

We've had a logic tree from RFU which clarifies that if a FR player recovers from a minor injury and is ok to go back on and make scrums contested again, they are fine to return and the side is restored to 15.

Yes, well - this is the RFU we are discussing, so we can expect them to say anything - leggings, anyone? But do we believe it?

There are only 2 ways an injured player can leave the field and later return - both covered by Law 3.10. They are blood injuries and (for a trial period) head injury assessments. I agree that these can result in the affected FR player returning, and we can argue that this is encompassed by the term "temporary exclusion", allowing them to return under the regulation. But if a FR player damages his knee and has to go off, causing uncontested scrums, he is not able to retake the field no matter what the Regulation may say - no RFU regulation can override Law 3.7:

[LAWS]A player may be permanently replaced if injured. If the player is permanently replaced, that player must not return and play in that match. The replacement of the injured player must be made when the ball is dead and with the permission of the referee[/LAWS]

 

[crossref]

but with interchanges we can no longer make a distinction between players who go off injured and players who are merely substituted - they just go off. No one is injured, they are tactically substituted for a rest, and sometimes they come back, sometimes they don't.

it's a good thing as players no longer have to play-on through things like asthma attack, cramp, dead leg, poke in the eye, smack in the nuts - all of which can temporarily disable a player, but from which you can quite legitimately recover.

 

[Phil E]

Just had these through, updated for this season. Might help.

View attachment 2997

View attachment 2996

 

[TheBFG]

There are only 2 ways an injured player can leave the field and later return - both covered by Law 3.10. They are blood injuries and (for a trial period) head injury assessments. I agree that these can result in the affected FR player returning, and we can argue that this is encompassed by the term "temporary exclusion", allowing them to return under the regulation. But if a FR player damages his knee and has to go off, causing uncontested scrums, he is not able to retake the field no matter what the Regulation may say - no RFU regulation can override Law 3.7:

But we're not talking about the injured player returning, we're talking about the original YC'd prop and the "flanker" that left the field to bring on the prop that has now been injured.

 

[TheBFG]

Just had these through, updated for this season. Might help.

View attachment 2997

View attachment 2996

That is the same logic tree we've always used, but what it doesn't cover is the issue where a side is already down to 14 due to a YC?

 

[Phil E]

That is the same logic tree we've always used, but what it doesn't cover is the issue where a side is already down to 14 due to a YC?

See the box in the bottom left of the tree :wink:

 

[Dixie]

but with interchanges we can no longer make a distinction between players who go off injured and players who are merely substituted - they just go off. No one is injured, they are tactically substituted for a rest, and sometimes they come back, sometimes they don't.

And we allow a FR tactical substitution "for a rest" which results in uncontested scrums? So the side getting mullered in the scrum can exercise tactical subs and play out the whole game with uncontested scrums? That is a possibility not covered by the Rolling Subs provisions, and I suggest it should not be permitted to happen.

But we're not talking about the injured player returning, we're talking about the original YC'd prop and the "flanker" that left the field to bring on the prop that has now been injured.

The original prop was binned , and the arrival of the replacement resulted in the removal of the flanker. That event did not result in uncontested scrums, so it can be unwound - which means that in the ordinary course of events the prop may return, the flanker may return and the replacement prop leaves the field. However, the scenario was not ordinary - the replacement prop was subsequently broken. As a result, he went off - causing uncontested scrums. The regulation says that in such circumstances, he may not be replaced and the team must play with one fewer players than would otherwise be the case. That one fewer is 13 while the bin lasts, and 14 when it is over.

Why did the RFU write this into their regs? I don't know - we can but ask them.

 

[crossref]

That one fewer is 13 while the bin lasts, and 14 when it is over.

.

I just don't see how it can be 14 when it's over.
what would be the reaosmn why they are playing with 14? because the departure of the second prop caused uncontested scrums ... but we no longer have uncontested scrums....

 

[chbg]

First of all, apologies for what comes ... (also this assumes Level 5 and below, when one FR replacement is required, not 2)

Until now I have bought fully into the reduction to 13 players following YC and subsequent injury. But ... this actually penalises the team that had an additional FR, who unfortunately then gets injured. If there was no replacement FR, the penalised team would play 10 minutes uncontested scrums with 14v15 players; then return to 15v15 with contested scrums. Because they had the additional FR, the intent is to play contested scrums with 14v15 players for 10 minutes. They manage to do so for, say, 4 minutes; then the injury means that they are in the same position as a team that didn't have this additional FR. Why should they be put in a worse position - uncontested scrums for 6 minutes with only 13v15 players? They have fulfilled the minimum requirement of one replacement FR, so should only be penalised because of the YC.

Otherwise, are we expecting that, having gone to uncontested scrums 14v14 for the rest of the match for an injury, every subsequent time that one of the remaining 2 FR is injured - by definition there is no FR replacement - then the team cannot replace that player with someone else from the bench, eventually resulting in 12v15? (I'm assuming that there still are fit non-FR players on the bench).

Logically, there are only 2 states of the scrum - contested or non-contested. It cannot go 'more uncontested'. Therefore, assuming all other things equal and at least one replacement FR available for any position, the match is either played 15v15 contested scrums, or 14v15 uncontested scrums, no matter how many FR may be injured. (Obviously not relevant for more than one concurrent YC/RC).

 

[crossref]

good point

 

[Browner]

Being a player down through 'man off' regs is a consequence of not being able to replace a STE Player.
Being a player down through YC binning law, is a consequence of illegal play.

Simultaneous consequence = 13 players

Once STE is available to rejoin game, then 'man off' ( a protection against disingenuous scrum safety gamesmanship) isn't needed any longer, so it 'automatically' is revoked.

Its introduction is triggered automatically, as is its ceasation,IMO.

I cannot imagine that Law would ever expect a 14v15 contest unnecessarily.

 

[chbg]

Being a player down through 'man off' regs is a consequence of not being able to replace a STE Player.
Being a player down through YC binning law, is a consequence of illegal play.

Simultaneous consequence = 13 players

If in that order (injury then YC) I agree. In the order that we were discussing (YC then injury) I (now) totally disagree.

 

[Browner]

If in that order (injury then YC) I agree. In the order that we were discussing (YC then injury) I (now) totally disagree.

Retaining a 14v 15 contest when 'punishments' have been served makes no logical sense, I can't imagine that the RFU would have such a desire.

I suggest you check with your CB referee Trainer.

 

[chbg]

Retaining a 14v 15 contest when 'punishments' have been served makes no logical sense, I can't imagine that the RFU would have such a desire.

I suggest you check with your CB referee Trainer.

??????

Please re-read the context of my comment and identify the part of your comment #37 to which I was referring.