Man off ruling - Sorry to dig this one up again

[Browner]

Order is irelevant, return to normal , irrespective.

 

[OB..]

There are two incidents – YC, and injury. They could occur in either order, and the returns could be in either order, giving 4 scenarios.

For simplicity I assume no more FR subs are available by the time of the incidents.

1. Injury. Causes uncontested scrums so player cannot be replaced. Down to 14.
YC. Player cannot be replaced. Down to 13.

1a. YC returns. Still uncontested scrums. Back to 14.
Injury returns. Back to contested scrums and 15 players.

1b. Injury returns. Still uncontested scrums. Back to 14 players.
YC returns. Back to contested scrums and 15 players.

2. YC. Player cannot be replaced, so uncontested scrums. 14 players.
Injury. Does not cause uncontested scrums, so player can be replaced. 14 players.

2a. Injury returns. Still uncontested scrums. 14 players.
YC returns. Back to contested scrums and 15 players.

2b. YC returns. Still uncontested scrum, but now caused by injured player, so man off applies. 14 players.
Injury returns. Back to contested scrums and 15 players.

2b is the curious case, the others are straightforward. The argument against my view is that he has already been replaced, but the aim of the rule is clearly that a team should be one player short if the absence of a FR player results in uncontested scrums.

Although they are called Laws, they are not the equivalent of Acts of Parliament, and should not be treated like that. A referee should know the laws but make sense of them. Rarely should he be forced to do something that seems daft.

 

[TheBFG]

had a reply to my original question from laws@rfu.com

If you see the logic tree no were does it state a side is reduced to 13 players. let us take your scenario step by step. Its level , three replacements one must be a FR player. You comply first time then an injury occurs and you have no other player capable of scrums remaining contested so its uncontested until the sin bin returns. If you have not used your 8 rolling subs then you can make it back to 14.

Really :chin:

 

[crossref]

well, I guess they gave an answer, but not a justification for the answer.

 

[crossref]

OK so I have used our London Society 'ask the expert' facility, and I received a similar answer : because they are already reduced to 14 there is no need for a further man-off : they can replace the injured prop with an non-STE player, go uncontested and remain at 14 for the duration of the YC.

(always assuming that they have enough interchanges left to do this, of course)

 

[crossref]

these responses beg the answer to a much simpler question.

The full back is RC and a team plays on with 14.

Subsequently a prop is injured and they have no replacement. Do they now suffer man-off and go down to 13?

Or is it the case that is a team is already at 14 (for whatever reason) playing contested, then man-off no longer applies.

 

[andyscott]

The confusion is caused by calling it a man off rule/law

There is no such thing as losing an extra player.

Its simple when you understand the above.

 

[OB..]

The rule says

the team concerned shall not be entitled to replace the Player whose departure caused the uncontested scrum.

There is nothing about any other reductions in numbers or how they relate.

If it really is to be interpreted the way the experts say, they need to re-write it at once.


PS This means that when you have collected a Yellow Card it might be a good idea to engineer uncontested scrums for 10 minutes without penalty.

 

[crossref]

The confusion is caused by calling it a man off rule/law

There is no such thing as losing an extra player.

Its simple when you understand the above.

You either haven't read the scenario, or you haven't read the regulations. This advice given us clearly contrary to the regulations.

 

[Browner]

The rule says
There is nothing about any other reductions in numbers or how they relate.

If it really is to be interpreted the way the experts say, they need to re-write it at once.


PS This means that when you have collected a Yellow Card it might be a good idea to engineer uncontested scrums for 10 minutes without penalty.

I agree OB, that type of engineered outcome is of course illogical, "man off" was specifically created to counter such disingenuous gamesmanship

For me its simple, there are two separate reasons for being a man down
A) STE non compliance (albeit caused by injury) and
B) Sanction

So two players has to be the result.

 

[Browner]

The confusion is caused by calling it a man off rule/law

.

Yep, ...."Causing Uncontesteds, Replacement Barring" or CURB it ?

 

[crossref]

PS This means that when you have collected a Yellow Card it might be a good idea to engineer uncontested scrums for 10 minutes without penalty.

indeed, and uncontested are especially attractive to you now that you have 7 v 8 in the scrum

 

[TheBFG]

but that makes little difference in the scrum, it's uncontested!

 

[crossref]

the point is that if you have 7 against 8, obviously uncontested is preferable to contested
- you win your own ball, cleanly which otherwise you might not if driven backwards.
- they opponents can't drive on their ball

 

[TheBFG]

OB's scenario is the reason why I believe you shouldn't be able to replace the broken prop.

as with the original post, the prop you bring on is the spare 4th team prop who happened to be around as he couldn't travel to the away game.

on he goes at the first asking of the scrum, gets stuffed, next scrum same again, so the coach, who is a win at all costs type of guy, tells his reserve prop to take a dive!

Down he goes so they bring back on their flanker and are now at 14 v 15 and uncontested scrums, so no penalty for causing the uncontested scrums, is that right????

 

[TheBFG]

OK, so to bring a close to this question.....

I had a reply from laws@rfu stating that "no team should ever be made to go to 13 players" (as part of an uncontested issue) and that "I could take it as gospel"

However

after a couple of ciders the other night at the worlds first referees society to celebrate their 125 anniversary (one for my London friends!) dinner we managed to get a conversation with the current RFU referees manager.

the outcome, yes they go to 13!

 

[andyscott]

OK, so to bring a close to this question.....

I had a reply from laws@rfu stating that "no team should ever be made to go to 13 players" (as part of an uncontested issue) and that "I could take it as gospel"

However

after a couple of ciders the other night at the worlds first referees society to celebrate their 125 anniversary (one for my London friends!) dinner we managed to get a conversation with the current RFU referees manager.

the outcome, yes they go to 13!

They could be at 13/12 etc all depending on the bins.

You cannot cannot ever ask someone else to leave the field for nothing.

Ask him to send you the logic tree.

 

[crossref]

the original question was a good one, as it happened in a game, but it's actually too complicated as a test case, people get all caught up in first time of askings and other stuff

A much simpler scenario is
- Full Back is sent off, and a team is down to 14
- Subsequenlty, after a front row injury a prop goes off and there is no STE player left to replace him, so scrums are uncontested, can he be replaced? or is the team now down to 13.

The answer is clearly that he can't be replaced and the team is down to 13.

If you don't agree consider the sequence of events reversed
- after a front row injury a prop goes off and there is no STE player left to replace him, so scrums are uncontested, and he cannot be replaced (14)
- susequently the Full Back is sent off (13)

Clearly you can't have a system where the answer is different based on the order these happen. In both cases they have to end up with 13.

 

[Browner]

They could be at 13/12 etc all depending on the bins.

You cannot cannot ever ask someone else to leave the field for nothing.

Ask him to send you the logic tree.

I had a society officer wave the logic tree at me , to evidence his view that you NEVER could go below 14
"What then happens with a binning, or two ? " I asked .........

"Binnings before man off are different than binnings after" he stated confidently.

Q?...So , if you've been sanctioned for foul play ( yellow or red) - your team because of that are forced to use a STE , but they can now contrive a uncontested scrum without suffering any man off consequence, which was the express purpose of creating man off regulation .... - is that what you're saying ?

" err, yes...., I think so, but i agree that it doesn't seem right ..... I'll speak with the RFU "

I'm waiting,

PS......great scenario posted BFG, but closed?....you wish!

 

[Jacko]

OK, so to bring a close to this question.....

I had a reply from laws@rfu stating that "no team should ever be made to go to 13 players" (as part of an uncontested issue) and that "I could take it as gospel"

However

after a couple of ciders the other night at the worlds first referees society to celebrate their 125 anniversary (one for my London friends!) dinner we managed to get a conversation with the current RFU referees manager.

the outcome, yes they go to 13!

You are not "making them go to 13". That sounds like confusion from when the regs were first being discussed, and we were potentially going to double whammy a side which went uncontested as a result of a YC or RC by making them remove a further player (making them go to 13).
All you are doing is not allowing a side to replace a player whose departure (for whatever reason) causes uncontested scrums. As per the regs.