NZ v Ireland Test 2 - Red card situation with Savea

wayner

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2014
Messages
29
Post Likes
5
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Can someone please explain the situation when the NZ replacement tighthead prop was red carded and Ardie Savea went off and was not allowed back on when the yellow card to the other tighthead expired. Was Savea taken off to allow another prop on the field or was he the designated red card since the other tighthead prop was already in the sin bin? And was this explained properly to NZ by Jaco? I have to think that if NZ knew that the player was off for the rest of the game that they might have taken off someone else rather than Savea.

What is this sequence that led to Savea having to sit out the rest of the game. I kind of remember a similar situation in the last year or two but I can't recall it off the top of my head.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
13,418
Post Likes
1,663
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
They should know the laws of the game.
always a good starting point. Law 3.20 tells us:

If a front-row player is sent off, and the team cannot continue with contested scrums with players already on the field, then the team nominates another player to leave the playing area to enable an available front-row player to come on. The nominated player may act as a replacement.


That suggests that Savea should have been able to return unless there is some competition rule that I'm unaware of.
 

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
644
Post Likes
144
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Why they took Savea off - arguably one of their better players - was beyond me.
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,426
Post Likes
601
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
always a good starting point. Law 3.20 tells us:

If a front-row player is sent off, and the team cannot continue with contested scrums with players already on the field, then the team nominates another player to leave the playing area to enable an available front-row player to come on. The nominated player may act as a replacement.


That suggests that Savea should have been able to return unless there is some competition rule that I'm unaware of.
Indeed. So "With all due respect mr 5th official I refer you to Law 3.20". May not change anything, but when you file your review of the officials afterwards you can refer to the fact that you respectfully told the officals.
 

wayner

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2014
Messages
29
Post Likes
5
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
They should know the laws of the game.
So what exactly are the laws in this instance?
I have seen a few opinions, including one that states that NZ should have been down to 12 men during that period while the yellow card was still active and scrums were uncontested. Just like Italy was down to 13 men in this years 6N match vs Ireland when their replacement hooker was red carded after the starting hooker left the game with an injury.
Another story says that the officials admitted to NZ after the game that they made a mistake and Savea should have been able to come back on the field.
 

Volun-selected


Referees in America
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
126
Post Likes
42
Location
United States
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
Looks like the ABs expected him back but the Game Management said nope.Foster explained that the All Blacks definitely wanted star No 8 Savea to return to play but weren’t allowed to bring him back on by the officiating crew.
Foster explained that the All Blacks definitely wanted star No 8 Savea to return to play but weren’t allowed to bring him back on by the officiating crew.
That decision was at odds with what All Black management thought should have happened in that situation.

RugbyPass Foster explains the Savea debacle
 

wayner

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2014
Messages
29
Post Likes
5
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Should the ABs have had to take off an additional player? How is this any different than the Italy v Ireland 6N of this year, with the exception that the first prop for NZ was yellow carded rather than injured?
 

Decorily

Coach/Referee
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
1,242
Post Likes
253
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Should the ABs have had to take off an additional player? How is this any different than the Italy v Ireland 6N of this year, with the exception that the first prop for NZ was yellow carded rather than injured?
Well is that not essentially the difference?
Injury is different to 'self inflicted ' dismissal!
 

wayner

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2014
Messages
29
Post Likes
5
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Well is that not essentially the difference?
Injury is different to 'self inflicted ' dismissal!
But I don't think that makes a difference regarding whether NZ should have been down to 12 men. Isn't it worse when you have both front players players of the same position off due to cards rather than one off for a card and one off for an injury?
 

RussRef


Referees in America
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
93
Post Likes
1
All:

I spent considerable time trying to sort through what happened in the second test, based on my viewing of the match, media reports and my trusty laws book. Here is my (admittedly lengthy) analysis. I'd appreciate any thoughts:

First, here is what happened and my humble analysis:
  • Minute 24: Tu’ungafasi (playing at #3) receives YC. NZ reduced to 14 players.
  • Minute 25: At the next scrum, and as required, NZ replaces Papalii (playing #6) with Ta’avao (now playing #3) to permit contested scrums. Papalii may return or serve as possible replacement after Tu’ungafasi’s YC suspension ends. NZ continues at 14 players. Law reference: 3.19.
  • Minute 31: Ta’avao (playing #3) receives RC. NZ reduced to 13 players for duration of Tu’ungafasi’s YC, 14 thereafter.
  • Minute 32: At the next scrum, NZ replaces Savea (playing #8) with Ross (now playing #3). THIS IS THE PLAYER MOVEMENT THAT EVERYONE HAS IGNORED. Ross, however, has been deemed by NZ before the match as not suitably trained and experienced to play #3, and so referee orders uncontested scrums for duration of Tu’ungafasi’s YC (3 minutes). Ross’s inability to scrummage competitively at #3 means that Law 3.19 does not apply to the Ross/Savea movement, and therefore Ross’s entry and Savea’s departure are treated as a regular tactical replacement. Law references: 3.13, 3.16, 3.19, 3.33. NZ continues at 13 players for duration of T’ungafasi’s YC.
  • Minute 34: Tu’ungafasi’s YC ends. NZ replaces Ross with Tu’ungafasi, and contested scrums return. Papalii returns to play as well. Law references: 3.16, 3.18. NZ returns to 14 players.
  • Minute 34: At the same time, Savea attempts to return to play, which would bring NZ to 15 players. Referee disallows Savea’s return. REFEREE IS CORRECT, BECAUSE SAVEA HAS BEEN TACTICALLY REPLACED BY ROSS (see minute 32 above) and so cannot return to play. Law reference: 3.33. Besides, who exactly is Savea meant to replace? It must be someone, because NZ cannot have more than 14 players. And it can't be Papalii, who only now returning to play.
Second, some additional Observations:
  • Was the All Blacks’ coaching staff too clever by half (part 1)? Bringing Ross, who has been deemed suitably trained and experienced only at loose head, on at minute 32 accomplished nothing except using a tactical replacement.
  • Was the All Blacks’ coaching staff too clever by half (part 2)? Hard to believe that none of the loose head props on the AB roster can play tight head at the international level. Did the AB coaching staff define their capabilities so narrowly before the match to force uncontested scrums in the (seemingly) unlikely event that Tu'ungafasi and Ta'avao could not play, and therefore guarantee ball retention on their own feed? If so, the failure to recognize the implications of moving Ross on, and Save off, at minute 32 is particularly surprising.
  • Does the no. 4 official bear part of the blame? Before the match, the ABs were obliged to inform the match officials which AB front row players were suitably trained and experienced in which position(s). When Ross reported to the no. 4 official at minute 32, did that official inform Ross he was permitted to enter the game as a tactical replacement for Savea? Or was that official unclear about the permission granted to Ross?
Interested in what you think ...
 

wayner

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2014
Messages
29
Post Likes
5
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Interesting stuff!

Are you sure that Ross for Savea was a tactical replacement rather than a mandatory replacement? How do you know that?

What about having to go down to 12 men? Was that negated by the tactical substitution of Ross rather than have it be a forced substitution?

Instead of Ross could NZ have brought on someone other than a front-rower, like Richie Mo'unga for example? Is it relevant that Ross also played in the front row?

Do you think that Ireland called a scrum to cause this situation? The ABs were given a penalty when Cody Taylor tried to collapse a maul and the Ireland asked for a scrum.
 

ray_murray

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Messages
1
Post Likes
2
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
A part of this that many seem to miss is that when Sexton called for the Scrum at 32.45 then not only did NZ have to take a player off to allow Ross on but because they had to go to uncontested the ref says to NZ that they had to lose another player so they should have been down to 12 untill the 35.11 time mark, but you can clearly see 5 of them on the tryline with 8 in the scrum that makes 13 one more than they are allowed. NZ played with 13 players for 2 1/2 minutes when they should have been down to 12.
See the table in the below article
 

wayner

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2014
Messages
29
Post Likes
5
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
A part of this that many seem to miss is that when Sexton called for the Scrum at 32.45 then not only did NZ have to take a player off to allow Ross on but because they had to go to uncontested the ref says to NZ that they had to lose another player so they should have been down to 12 untill the 35.11 time mark, but you can clearly see 5 of them on the tryline with 8 in the scrum that makes 13 one more than they are allowed. NZ played with 13 players for 2 1/2 minutes when they should have been down to 12.
That's what I was getting at in post 5 of this thread. Why aren't they down to 12 as Italy was vs Ireland in this year's 6N?
 

Volun-selected


Referees in America
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
126
Post Likes
42
Location
United States
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
Quick side question - at this level is it still only the opposing team’s players that can call out to the ref that the other team has too many players (as per law 3.3)? Or can others, such as coaches or officials, also make the call?
 

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
644
Post Likes
144
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
That's what I was getting at in post 5 of this thread. Why aren't they down to 12 as Italy was vs Ireland in this year's 6N?
Was it the referee who decided uncontested rather than the team saying we can't field a front row? Does that have any impact on how the rule works?
 

KML1


Argentina Referees in Argentina
Joined
Jan 12, 2004
Messages
1,200
Post Likes
63
Location
England
Current Referee grade:
Elite Panel
Couple of errors in what happened.

1) AB should have been reduced to 12 - everyone understands that bit (and similar to the Ire v Italy outcome in 2022 6N)

2) When it was all the YC exchanged were resolved, it should have left 15 v 14. But, only one of the two players who had left - AB6 and AB8 - could come back, and they brought back on AB6. But that overlooks Law 3.30 which covers exactly this scenario and should have prevented AB6 from coming back on/ By removing AB6 from the equation, that would have cleared AB8 could come back on.

All that aside, it's shown that it's all way too complex. But why? Well, because coaches were gaming situations to create uncontested scenarios (I think this goes back to a Wales v Georgia game some years back) This has stopped that, but causes headaches all round when 2 FR forwards get sent off!!

Note - Glad most if us don't need to worry about such things!
 

Camquin

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,601
Post Likes
278
I believe, even if you go uncontested, you have to bring on all your front row players - otherwise both sides would sub props with back rowers.
The man off laws are obviously too complicated for top officials to get right, therefore too complex for us.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
13,418
Post Likes
1,663
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Quick side question - at this level is it still only the opposing team’s players that can call out to the ref that the other team has too many players (as per law 3.3)? Or can others, such as coaches or officials, also make the call?
I'd suggest that at ANY level, if the referee becomes aware of too many players (irrespective of how he/she becomes aware) then the sanction of 3.3 applies (in bold below) noting that 3.3 says:

A team may make an objection to the referee about the number of players in their opponents’ team. If a team has too many players, the referee orders the captain of that team to reduce the number appropriately. The score at the time of the objection remains unaltered. Sanction: Penalty.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,734
Post Likes
2,248
I believe, even if you go uncontested, you have to bring on all your front row players - otherwise both sides would sub props with back rowers.
The man off laws are obviously too complicated for top officials to get right, therefore too complex for us.
This is true, but why ? What's wrong with teams subbing props for back rowers?
Never understood the reasoning for this Law
 
Top