Newcastle's illegal substitution?

FKlopper

New member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
135
Post Likes
0
Sorry if this has been asked or answered elsewhere,or if it sounds stupid, but I've only just caught up with the weekend's Aviva Premiership action.

Was the substitution that Newcastle made in the front-row illegal?

The situation: Newcastle substitute their Loosehead prop (Kieran Brookes) after 30-odd minutes of the first half, bringing on number 17 (Grant Shiells).

At half time, the Newcastle assistant coach Paul Moriarty, gives an interview to ESPN and explains that they wanted to bring a specialist Loosehead prop on, and that Brookes afternoon was not finished.

After around 55 minutes of the game, the Newcastle TP, Tim Ryan, goes off supposedly with an injury, and Brookes manages to return to the game, refreshed from his little break on the sidelines.

Are Newcastle allowed to make this substitution, or do they have to bring on the unused prop on the bench? Does Tim Ryan have to prove that he was injured, or was that up to Northampton challenging it at the time?
 

Donal1988


Referees in Ireland
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
2,366
Post Likes
0
Its an interesting one. Mainly because they announced on television their intentions before hand and also consulted the 4th Official before making the subsitutions. If they are fabricating an injury they will be in trouble but who is to say Tim Ryan wasn't carrying a knock going into it which would make it interesting. Does a small knock count as an injury??? Logic would say that Newcastle made an illegal subsitution though did it in the knowledge that it was legal, having consulted the 4th official beforehand. Their press release says as far as they are concerned they did nothing wrong.
 

stuart3826


Referees in England
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
962
Post Likes
0
As 4th Officials, we are not doctors, and not therefore qualified to make diagnosis as to injury. If a coach tells me a player is injured, I'll take his word. I can usually see some evidence - time spent lying on the floor, ice bags etc.

Therefore, if there's a front row injury, and a front row player has been previously subbed as a tactical, he may go back on to avoid uncontested scrums. The player who has come off as injured, however, stays off no matter what.
 

B52 REF


Referees in England
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
650
Post Likes
9
sorry-but if there is an unused prop on the bench why don't they have to use him before letting brookes back on??
 

stuart3826


Referees in England
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
962
Post Likes
0
sorry-but if there is an unused prop on the bench why don't they have to use him before letting brookes back on??
Because there's nothing to say they do - all the laws state is a player must be STE - they don't stipulate in which front row position.
 

Davet

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,731
Post Likes
4
The only issue is was the injury real or not?

If it was then no problem.

If not - well that was the whole issue with bloodgate, and I would expect a similar investigation.

For the coach to imply that he knew a FR injury would happen in the 2nd half may involve abnormal prescience.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
my ignorance here... why would the leaving prop HAVE to be injured in this scenario? Why couldn't it be a straight substitution? (because previously subbed props can ONLY be used for injury replacements presumably?)

Now I no longer coach senior rugby I miss these nuances!

didds
 

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
my ignorance here... why would the leaving prop HAVE to be injured in this scenario? Why couldn't it be a straight substitution? (because previously subbed props can ONLY be used for injury replacements presumably?)
I'm still trying to get my head round the sub / replacement laws, but as far as I can tell a previously subbed player (off for tactical reasons not injury) can only come back on to replace
  • a player with a bleeding or open wound or
  • a front row player off for any reason eg YC, RD or injury
After Bloodgate, arranging a "bleeding or open wound" is problematic, so the 2nd option is preferable.
 
Last edited:
Top