[Scrum] New Laws : 8 in a scrum

[didds]

This got touched on in another thread but to clear the wheat from the chaff here's a separate query:

The new law trials for 2017/18 include

3.6 Number of Players – The Team
Uncontested scrums as a result of a sending off, temporary suspension or injury must be played with eight players per side.


So does that mean that if through having an incomplete side, or through cards, a team has less than 15 players and elects to field less than eight in the scrum they can do so all the time it is contested.

But as soon as it becomes uncontested through injuries/cards, it must at that time become 8 man?

SUMMARY : there can be contested scrums with less than 8 players, but not uncontested?

didds

 

[Phil E]

Yes I believe you are correct.

If a back get carded or sent off it's still contested and there are still 8 in the scrum.

If a non front row forward gets carded (i.e. flanker or No 8) we still have contested scrums but the offending team has 7 in the scrum.

If a Front Row gets carded and no replacements are available such that we now go to uncontested scrums, then they have to bring a back into the scrum to keep it at 8.

 

[didds]

Yes I believe you are correct.

If a back get carded or sent off it's still contested and there are still 8 in the scrum

Not if you turned up with only 14 players, or a bare 15 with FR replacement coming from onfield (still ST&E) and played with a 7 man scrummage and 7 backs, with a contested scrummage.

This is the nuance that WR seem to have ignored - that there is a huge swathe of rugby played that play in this scenario. they have just assumed sides always start with 8 in a scrummage, and/or never get an injury with no bench. Or now I consider it bench players and several injuries!

But I concur with you generally Phil. The issue I see from this is that it will prevent 13 v 12 down in the real roots from even trying to get any gamje underway, and 25 people will have no game at all. hardly a positive step.

didds

 

[Phil E]

But I concur with you generally Phil. The issue I see from this is that it will prevent 13 v 12 down in the real roots from even trying to get any gamje underway, and 25 people will have no game at all. hardly a positive step.

didds

I would expect local competition regs to deal with that.

 

[didds]

How? The laws say if uncontested it must be 8 v 8.

For that 12 v 13 example, that leaves one side with 3 backs and the other side 4, plus an 8 man scrum and a scrumhalf each.

didds

 

[OB..]

How? The laws say if uncontested it must be 8 v 8.

For that 12 v 13 example, that leaves one side with 3 backs and the other side 4, plus an 8 man scrum and a scrumhalf each.

didds

[LAWS]20.1 (e) [FONT=fs_blakeregular]Number of players: eight. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]A scrum must have eight players from each team. All eight players must stay bound to the scrum until it ends. Each front row must have three players in it, no more and no less. Two locks must form the second row.[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]
[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Sanction: Penalty kick
[/FONT]Exception: When a team is reduced to fewer than fifteen for any reason, then the number of players of each team in the scrum may be similarly reduced. Where a permitted reduction is made by one team, there is no requirement for the other team to make a similar reduction. However, a team must not have fewer than five players in the scrum.[/LAWS]Presumably this exception still applies.

 

[Camquin]

I note it is missing a variation for 10s or 7s.

While there is a variation in law 20 as there i not one here, in a game of 7s you still need 8 men in an uncontested scrum.

WR are drunk in charge of a rule book.

 

[VM75]

How? The laws say if uncontested it must be 8 v 8.

For that 12 v 13 example, that leaves one side with 3 backs and the other side 4, plus an 8 man scrum and a scrumhalf each.

didds

It also seems to mean that the 'Innocent' team that never caused the 'uncontested' situation is also forced to put another player in the scrum [say the game started with 7v7 in each scrum, for a 14-a-side game]

Clearly having uneven numbers in a non-contested scrum isn't a safety issue, so it makes more sense IMO to allow the non offending side to have less players in the uncontested scrum IF they choose, if that then gives the offenders a numerical disadvantage in the backs then so be it.

 

[didds]

Presumably this exception still applies.

We don't really have any other option do we? As you quite rightly point out OB, we have to make sense of what the law book says - but its another example of one step forward and several backwards, sideways or extra ones forward depending on the individual who has to make sense of it on the day.

Wouldn't it just be clearer if instead of saying "8" at uncontested scrums it said some sort of wording indicating it should be the number used in the scrum before it went uncontested?

OB's point makes clear sense to me. But we all know that some poor bugger with a whistle one day isn;t going to read it that way. Ot even agree of he does "know" OB's point. "IT says 8 in this law. 8 it will be".

didds

 

[Rushforth]

How? The laws say if uncontested it must be 8 v 8.

The Dutch youth regulations for contested scrums are they must be 3-4-1 with just one "last row" who has to bind between the locks.

But "if a team is unable, for any reason whatsoever, to select a full team or keep them in the field, then the formation of the scrum is as follows: [] If a team is missing 1 player, both scrums must have a 3-4 formation (i.e. without Nr. 8), [] If a team is missing 2 players, both scrums must have a 3-2-1 formation (i.e. without flankers), [] If a team is missing 3 players, both scrums must have a 3-2 formation (i.e. only a front row with two locks)."

Admittedly the only mention of scrums going uncontested in the senior regulations for 2017-2018 is unchanged from last year and allows for matches to be claimed if scrums go uncontested due to insufficient front row players.

Here, ten players turning up is acceptable, particularly if that's all you have. At the lowest levels for seniors, and also juniors of all ages, the maximum difference between team sizes is 1. So if 10 men turn up to an away game, the hosts have the choice of lending them 2 of their starting 15 and playing 13-12. They also have the option of lending nobody, or of lending 4 or 5 if they have the reserves willing to do that.

Let's say they don't. The home side may have only 10 men themselves. All 20 players want a game. Are you, as a referee, going to insist that the scrums pack down 8 v 8 when it goes uncontested in the final quarter, when an injury to a front row player takes the game to 10 v 9?

If a friendly game is scheduled pre-season, and fewer than 30 guys show up in total, including five front row players, meaning that scrums are uncontested from the very start, and both teams want to play with a six-man pack, are you going to insist that four backs pack in at every non-contest?

The laws are important. But not as important as safety, which is the purpose of the Dutch regulation for contested scrums for juniors. And not necessarily as important as a fair contest, which in this case could be a prop feigning an injury (again, I would rather believe that a fellow member of the front row union will not do so likely, but he may be a flanker promoted out of position that season and be "psychologically" injured).

You don't have to be literal. If scrums start with reduced numbers, keep them equal, use the captains to agree on how many they want to start with if they can, otherwise determine what is safe by yourself (protip: if a single defending flanker packs on his own loose-head too, there may be some spinning from the couple made. ATP).

 

[didds]

If a team turn up with 5 are you going to insist they pack with 5 in a scrum leaving no back line defenders?

That's an extreme point I know.

UPDATE: Just found this. I guess its buried in the regs somewhere
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-13586.html

with a two man differential versus windsor many years ago, but destroying them in the scum anyway (playing without wings) and winning after an hour some interesting injuries occurred meaning they had no ST&E FRs so we went uncontested. Their injured hooker played on the wing despite not being able to play as a hooker was one of them. Now with no pressure in the scrums they just ran around the outside, so we dropped the flankers to cover. then we had injuries ourselves so I (as pack leader) just called a 3 man front row and dispatched the remaining second row to the backline.

Ref pinged us for not having 5 in the scrum. He mumbled the reason at me whilst looking at the ground. I simply said "its not us that taking the piss out of this game".

safety - equity (as was back then ) - law. Really?

didds

 

[Phil E]

I think the point is that going uncontested and having one man down in the scrum doesn't disadvantage the offending team. They still have a full set of backs. So by saying 8v8 in the scrum the offending team are now 1 man down in the backs.

If you don't start with a full team just extrapolate it. I would expect referees to be told to use their common sense in non standard situations.

 

[Rushforth]

If a team turn up with 5 are you going to insist they pack with 5 in a scrum leaving no back line defenders?

Ah, its been a while since I won a game we started with thirteen men, and almost certainly with pretty much the same front row as played a mid-week cup match against a side in the the top division. We lost that one something like 50-4 despite taking something like ten against the head in the scrums - otherwise it really would have been a cricket score! But that same front five in our 2nd XV in the lowest division could make mincemeat of anybody. For some reason it was easier to get players for home games, probably nothing to do with the almost free and limitless cold frothy liquid available there.

I had a game a few years ago where I offered some students a ride on their rather long journeys there and back. Only six lads turned up, and the hosts had already been warned and had a lot of new players available at the time (also mostly students, although this was a civilian club).

Anyway, the point is that I am not starting a game of XVs with fewer than 10 players on either side. If five turn up and the hosts don't want to claim the points, then the same will happen as in a second division match where only 14 turned up to an away game, but they will have to even out the numbers somehow, even if it starts 15 v 10. Law 3.3 applies "at all times" but I don't see a PK sanction for it, unlike 3.2.

Also although physically a player may in the course of a game become unfit to continue in the front row but able to go out on the wing, if the scrums are to go uncontested for that, he or she is going off, and now somebody else is coming in to take their place.

 

[didds]

Also although physically a player may in the course of a game become unfit to continue in the front row but able to go out on the wing, if the scrums are to go uncontested for that, he or she is going off, and now somebody else is coming in to take their place.

Our ref was somewhat incredulous and said to ask in an apologetic manner he couldn't do anything. He then said to the windsor captain that he (the ref) wasn;t happy with what was going on.

Then later he pinged us as I described above.

didds

 

[Pegleg]

I note it is missing a variation for 10s or 7s.

While there is a variation in law 20 as there i not one here, in a game of 7s you still need 8 men in an uncontested scrum.

WR are drunk in charge of a rule book.

They probably expect, on this occasion at least, people to use common sense.

 

[Pegleg]

Our guidence is that if a player is unfit to scrummage them he leaves the field. So he can't go on the wing.

Also you can't start a game with 5 so not relevant.

Finally we re introducing a "community" level where the two sides and the referee can agree variations such as youth. and dispensations in general. All in the name of getting people playing. We await the full details but it will be interesting as it beds in.

 

[didds]

Our guidence is that if a player is unfit to scrummage them he leaves the field. So he can't go on the wing.

Also you can't start a game with 5 so not relevant.

Finally we re introducing a "community" level where the two sides and the referee can agree variations such as youth. and dispensations in general. All in the name of getting people playing. We await the full details but it will be interesting as it beds in.

That sounds eminently sensible.

Though of course you will then get the U7 coach who says "lets tackle"... [that doesn't negate Pegleg's post !]

didds

 

[crossref]

exploring the scenarios further - if we have a game of 14 v 14, with both teams playing seven in the scrum, and then one team loses a prop, so that we have 14 v 13, we are now saying that BOTH teams have to increase the scrum to eight.

it's a poorly drafted Law, what they MEANT to say, was that in the event of scrums going uncontested, numbers in the scrum must be MATCHED, so that the numerical advantage is in the backs.

The spirit of the new Law is that in this scenario scrums should remain at 7v7

( It's the same mistake as they made in various regulations about man-off, when they spoke about teams under man-off having to play with 14. Neglecting the scenario where started with 14, and man-off reduced them to 13 )

 

[didds]

Bang on CR.

So we await the RFU/WR/some random 12 year old to update this .

Meanwhile there WILL be one ref SOMEWHERE that insists in CR's scenario (or my 12 v 13 one!) that the scums increase to 8. We know it. Nobody here obviously.

didds

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Nobody here obviously Didds, are you sure?
At the moment we have no choice and would expect a lot of complaints if we started making law interpretations up for league matches.
There are a lot of jobs worths out there who will grass you up to league secretaries for any perceived misdemeanour.
I've met quite a few over the years