[RWC] RSA vs ITA - Uncontested Scrums?

[belladonna]

...and we all know commentators are always correct with their assertions!

I know right! But he was pretty insistent, saying it twice. Reading between the lines, I suspected he was getting as close as he could to calling Italy cheats without actually doing so.
Does anyone have the match time of the incident? I might still have it recorded...

 

[crossref]

Eighteen minutes I think ??

 

[belladonna]

Eighteen minutes I think ??

Thanks, I'll take a look.
[LATER]
Ooo yes, I found it - it's at 13:40 (but 18 mins was close enough to help me find it, thanks again crossref).
I was completely and utterly wrong (and so was the commentator)!
The replay in slow-mo shows definite impact to the head and a kind of head-snap that could easily lead to a concussion or suspected concussion.
To be fair to the commentator, at full speed the impact seemed to be on the shoulder - and the trainer came on and gave him spray and an ice pack to his midriff!!

 

[TheBFG]

Has there been anymore comments on this incident (un contested scrums)?

Was there a change a while back, something around the lines of a player with a head injury being "forced" to come back so his team don't go to 14?

 

[crossref]

Has there been anymore comments on this incident (un contested scrums)?

Was there a change a while back, something around the lines of a player with a head injury being "forced" to come back so his team don't go to 14?

apparently the latest protocols form WR cover this, and you don't go to 14 in the case of a head injury. But I don't think that protocol is published anywhere (?)

AIUI had they had the head injury first, followed by a hamstring they would have been down to 14

There are a lot of advantages in failing an HIA , especially if it doesn't necessarily mean any subsequent time away from playing or trading

 

[Flish]

Do you mean this?

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&clarification_era=onward&clarlaw=3&clarification=1028

 

[crossref]

Do you mean this?

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&clarification_era=onward&clarlaw=3&clarification=1028

Not quite
That says that a substituted player can come back on to replace someone with a head injury

(So they can bring the original prop back on)

It doesn't say whether or not man off applies when you have to go to uncontested. (Becauae the original prop is also injured)

 

[Flish]

Ah, ok, no I can't see that, doesn't surprise me mind as man off is more entwined with competition regs than law so would possibly be published elsewhere

 

[crossref]

Ah, ok, no I can't see that, doesn't surprise me mind as man off is more entwined with competition regs than law so would possibly be published elsewhere

Indeed. I think this is the casw

Although WR don't always need tournament regs as they write the laws to be how they want their tournaments to run.

It makes some sense to make an exception for HIA

But it makes no sense for
head followed by hamstring = man off 14 players
hamstring followed by head = 15

In general manoff seems to be going out of fashion isn't it ?
My local leagues are increasingly abandoning it.

 

[L'irlandais]

I am not sure the Tournament regulations make any mention of it. So current Laws apply, right?

 

[didds]

AIUI had they had the head injury first, followed by a hamstring they would have been down to 14

how incredibly sensible.

Doesn't ANYBODY vaguely in charge EVER think these things through? Stewth...

didds

 

[didds]

In general manoff seems to be going out of fashion isn't it ?
My local leagues are increasingly abandoning it.

I wonder if its just simply because its too confusing for everybody involved ? let alone being a law/rule/reg that is built around the elite level that just doesn't work in the grass roots 4th XV where some teams are only able to get 13 out to start with, but play anyway so everybody (including oppo and refs ) get a game wjatever, bu7t face a scenario of being down to 12 before they even include a possible injury

 

[crossref]

Where teams turn up without a front row the current vogue is that they can choose to play with 14 or play with a penalty.

If they start with a front row and later go uncontested it's becoming less common to have man off, but it's supposed to be reported to the organisers to monitor it .. looking for repeat offenders

 

[didds]

Where teams turn up without a front row the current vogue is that they can choose to play with 14 or play with a penalty.

as in the oppo start the game with a PK? Or some points awarded before KO to the oppo?

If they start with a front row and later go uncontested it's becoming less common to have man off, but it's supposed to be reported to the organisers to monitor it .. looking for repeat offenders

so a club that is struggling for numbers generally or unable to attract FRs to them (posisbly after injuries follwoing the seasoin beginning) can get penalsied? How does that help anybody get a game going and players in the game, clubs afloat etc ? its a general question, not specifically aimed at CR


didds

 

[crossref]

A points penalty.. in one league I ref you can choose either to play with 14 or play with 15 and start 14-0 down

If a team drops to uncontested one strand of thinking at grassroots is that it is crazy to have a sub shivering on the touchline and only 14 allowed on the pitch
In the grassroots get people on the field playing rugby....

In some cases there may be a points penalty .

I don't know what happens to repeat offenders (I would hazard a guess no one ever bothers to report in .. except in the rare occasions when teams are really arsing about )

 

[Flish]

Man off law applies in leagues around me (DN1 -> 3) if you don't comply with minimum no of FR replacements you suffer a bonus point loss in the event of uncontested, happened once to me when I binned the hooker - they suffered a bonus point loss anyway!

 

[Decorily]

There seems to be two different scenarios being discussed here as if both had the same consequences.

A... A team not being able to field a front row and their respective replacements.

B. ..A team fielding a front row and replacements but having to go uncontested during the course of the game as a result of multiple injuries.

 

[crossref]

There seems to be two different scenarios being discussed here as if both had the same consequences.

A... A team not being able to field a front row and their respective replacements.

B. ..A team fielding a front row and replacements but having to go uncontested during the course of the game as a result of multiple injuries.

Yes the various leagues I ref in .. ie merit tables distinguish those two cases.

The trend I perceive is to penalise teams who turn up without a front row but less so the ones who end up without one

But all the competition have different rules