Players "faking" injuries : Any penalty for it?

[Account Deleted]

Simple answer is yes you can ping a player for trying to con you (whatever country / club he plays for). It's ungentlemanly conduct.

Perhaps getting him off the field and checked because you "suspect concussion" might focus his mind.

 

[RugbyFan]

Perhaps getting him off the field and checked because you "suspect concussion" might focus his mind.

That is a really good thing to do. Since safety comes first!

 

[Blackberry]

Yesterday in a level 9 game at an important point in the game the captain of the home team called to the scrum half "take a knee", and the scrum half replied "no no" as I looked at him with genuine puzzlement. Almost immediately I realised it might be a call to delay the game with a fake injury. As I jogged top the next line out alongside the player and said in a slightly aggrieved voice "Here, XXX, you wouldn't try a pull a fake injury stunt would you". He laughed and held both hands up.

It was a wonderful game, the away team dominated in the scrum, but the home team really held its discipline. With 9 minutes to go I sin binned the away prop for an infringement right on the line, which turned the tables in the scrum, then soon after sin binned their flanker for a dangerous tackle. The home team swept towards the line again and again, finally crossing the line to win with the last move of the game. Interestingly some of the crowd asked me afterwards if I had played extra time, they had heard my alarm go off on my watch. I set an alarm to go off with a minutes warning, and this is what they heard. I was counting down the time to the players so they knew what was going on.

After the match I watched the away captain fill in my feedback card with the lowest scores possible. I got him across and asked what the problem was. He looked puzzled, went back to the card, scribbled again, then came back saying "Sorry, read it the wrong way round"

 

[Taff]

That is a really good thing to do. Since safety comes first!

But I assume that a replacement would be allowed on in that case?

 

[the magpie]

I raise your Clerc and give you Lee Byrne in the Scotland v Wales game when he fell down like a sniper had shot him, which got the Scotland player sin-binned and won Wales a game that they didn't deserve to win (Sound familiar?). (Please also note I never blamed the ref for one second) but yes, cheating gits is a horrible part of professional sport and if I saw it was obvious I would penalise and possibly even offer the same sanction that the cheating player was trying to achieve for the other team.

I see your Lee Byrne, and raise you Heinrich Brussow in the South Africa v Samoa game. After trying to get rid of Paul Williams from grabbing on, Brussow lays a couple of choice elbows into the back of Williams' head. Williams gets up and pushes Brussow in the head, which sees Brussow go down as if he'd been hit by a heavyweight boxer. Brussow stays down until Williams is red carded, and bounces back to his feet, unhurt.

 

[the magpie]

if the player leaving the pitch causes uncontested scrums then no replacement is allowed, reducing the team to 14.

widely played in the UK ... and elsewhere.

It wouldn't have applied in this case - the "man off" law is in relation to Law 3.5(c):
[LAWS]When 19, 20, 21 or 22 players are nominated in a team there must be five players who can
play in the front row to ensure that on the first occasion that a replacement hooker is
required, and on the first occasion that a replacement prop forward is required, the team
can continue to play safely with contested scrums.[/LAWS]

If teams lose 2 props in the space of the game, the man off law does not apply, as they team has met the minimum requirements of 3.5(c).

 

[OB..]

It wouldn't have applied in this case - the "man off" law is in relation to Law 3.5(c):
[LAWS]When 19, 20, 21 or 22 players are nominated in a team there must be five players who can
play in the front row to ensure that on the first occasion that a replacement hooker is
required, and on the first occasion that a replacement prop forward is required, the team
can continue to play safely with contested scrums.[/LAWS]

If teams lose 2 props in the space of the game, the man off law does not apply, as they team has met the minimum requirements of 3.5(c).

Law 3.5 (d)[LAWS]A provision may be introduced that where uncontested scrums are ordered as a result of there being no suitably trained and experienced front row replacement for any reason, the team concerned shall not be entitled to replace the player whose departure caused uncontested scrums.[/LAWS]

 

[the magpie]

Law 3.5 (d)[LAWS]A provision may be introduced that where uncontested scrums are ordered as a result of there being no suitably trained and experienced front row replacement for any reason, the team concerned shall not be entitled to replace the player whose departure caused uncontested scrums.[/LAWS]

In Australia, we normally look towards Law 3.5(c) in relation to this, so that teams that meet the provisions of 3.5(c) are not penalised.

If they don't meet the requirements of 3.5(c), then they play 1 short, but are allowed to use subs. We used to stop subs being used but dropped that last year.

 

[Dixie]

In Australia, we normally look towards Law 3.5(c) in relation to this, so that teams that meet the provisions of 3.5(c) are not penalised.

If they don't meet the requirements of 3.5(c), then they play 1 short, but are allowed to use subs. We used to stop subs being used but dropped that last year.

No surprise there! The provision was introduced to deal with the situation in which a weak scrummaging side (AKA The Wallabies) were engineering uncontested scrums to negate their opponents' scrum advantage. Bearing in mind that Australia prefers its rugby to be played exclusively by back row forwards, why on Earth would it go along with provisions designed to bolster scrummaging?