Ruling: 5 : 2009

[David J.]

Ruling: 5 : 2009\

Request for a Ruling from the Designated Members from the RFU

LAW 3.12 SUBSTITUTED PLAYERS REJOINING THE match

Background: Early in a match Team A replace their tighthead prop, because of injury, with their nominated prop forward replacement.

Late in the match, the replacement prop forward collects a serious injury forcing him to leave the field. Team A, having used all their nominated substitutes, continue to play with 14 players. When the first scrum after the injured prop leaves the field is awarded, and after consulting with the Captain of Team A, who confirms his side cannot replace their injured prop with a suitably trained and experienced prop forward, the referee orders uncontested scrums.

At this stage, Team A seek permission from the match officials for their substituted hooker to rejoin the match in an attempt to bring their playing numbers back to 15. The match officials refuse to allow the player to rejoin the
match, which concludes with uncontested scrums and Team A playing with 14 players.

Question: Were the officials correct in not permitting Team A the opportunity to bring their playing numbers up to 15?

Ruling of the Designated Members:

In this situation the team has used all its permitted replacements/substitutes.

The purpose of Law 3.12 was to allow a player who has been substituted to return to the front row (in the event of an injury requiring a replacement front row player) to enable the game to continue with contested scrums.

In the situation described, uncontested scrums had been ordered and the team had utilised all its permitted replacements and substitutes and therefore the injured front row player should not be replaced.

Additionally, if uncontested scrums have been ordered and there is an injury to a front row player which requires that player to be replaced and there is a front row player available to replace that player then the front row player replacement
must be used rather than players other than front row replacements.

 

[beckett50]

Interesting.

And your question is......

 

[David J.]

And a question is required because....

 

[KML1]

what if there is no question? :wink:

 

[OB..]

Philosophy 101

Q:Is this a question?

A: Yes, if this is an answer.

 

[David J.]

This sentence is not true.

 

[Dixie]

Additionally, if uncontested scrums have been ordered and there is an injury to a front row player which requires that player to be replaced and there is a front row player available to replace that player then the front row player replacement must be used rather than players other than front row replacements.

Well I certainly find this bit interesting, even if no-one else does. Unfit fat boy hooker, only on the bench because no-one else can throw into the lineout if the #2 gets injured. #1 gets injured, replaced by a prop. #3 gets injured, replaced by a prop. Replacement prop gets injured, you have to bring on fat boy instead of the highly athletic replacement #8 by action of law, even though both would be played out of position, scrums will be uncontested, neither is STE to prop in contested scrums and replacement #8 is STE for uncontested scrums.

I have to say that I find the last several 2009 iRB law rulings awkward, bizarre and likley to create more problems than they solve.

 

[dave_clark]

Unfit fat boy hooker

first three words un-necessary surely?

 

[OB..]

Well I certainly find this bit interesting, even if no-one else does. Unfit fat boy hooker, only on the bench because no-one else can throw into the lineout if the #2 gets injured. #1 gets injured, replaced by a prop. #3 gets injured, replaced by a prop. Replacement prop gets injured, you have to bring on fat boy instead of the highly athletic replacement #8 by action of law, even though both would be played out of position, scrums will be uncontested, neither is STE to prop in contested scrums and replacement #8 is STE for uncontested scrums.

A crucial feature of the case being considered is that all replacements have been used (not just front row replacements). The question is in fact whether or not they can exercise Law 3.12 Exception 2 which allows a substituted front row player to come back on for an injured front row player.

The Ruling is that the substituted hooker is not STE to play prop, so the scrums would continue to be uncontested; the inference they draw is that you cannot use the Exception merely to bring your numbers up to 15.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I see no problem (per se) with bringing a previously replaced prop on to make scrums contested, but just as you would if a prop had been sent off, someone else has to go off to get the numbers down to 14.

 

[Simon Thomas]

I see no problem (per se) with bringing a previously replaced prop on to make scrums contested, but just as you would if a prop had been sent off, someone else has to go off to get the numbers down to 14.

Ian

You are only allowed to bring back on a substituted (tactical) prop in cases of blood injury, YC, etc. A replaced (injured prop) is not available to return. hence 4th official has to have clear verbal or usually written subs/reps cards with reason for sub/rep.

The other issue is that if you have run out of your allocated replacements (at first or secnd time of asking depending on the level you play at), then the RFU League and Cup Regs clearly state the scrums should go uncontested. The team involved is under no requirement to bring anyone back on, even if they have a substituted prop to come back on - and I am sure would first weigh up the tactical benefits of doing so.

 

[Dixie]

A crucial feature of the case being considered is that all replacements have been used (not just front row replacements). The question is in fact whether or not they can exercise Law 3.12 Exception 2 which allows a substituted front row player to come back on for an injured front row player.

The Ruling is that the substituted hooker is not STE to play prop, so the scrums would continue to be uncontested; the inference they draw is that you cannot use the Exception merely to bring your numbers up to 15.

OB, I understand the ruling itself pertaining to Law 3.12 (which is contained in the paragraphs prior to the last one). However, the Designated Members then go off topic to address an additional point - i.e. one not mentioned in the question:

Additionally, if uncontested scrums have been ordered and there is an injury to a front row player which requires that player to be replaced and there is a front row player available to replace that player then the front row player replacement must be used rather than players other than front row replacements.

It is surely impossible to read that sentence on the assumption that all replacements/subs, including all FR ones, have been used. Given that, I offered a scenario that seemed to me to fit the bill. Like you, I would suggest that a substituted hooker may not return to the game if uncontested scrums are to persist. So in the circumstances I outlined, it seems that the Designated Members assert that Fat Boy Hooker MUST be used instead of Athletic #8. This is in spite of the existence of Law 3.13(a):

It is not the responsibility of the referee to determine the suitability of trained front row replacements nor their availability, as this is a team responsibility.

 

[OB..]

I agree the final paragraph is out of kilter with the earlier ones.

Team A, having used all their nominated substitutes, continue to play with 14 players.
This surely MUST mean they have no subs, front row or otherwise?

At this stage, Team A seek permission from the match officials for their substituted hooker to rejoin the match in an attempt to bring their playing numbers back to 15.
When a scrum is awarded, they want to use exception 2 in Law 3.12 to bring back on a substituted hooker – not because he can play prop, but because they want to bring their numbers up to 15 again. The Ruling is that they cannot.

When it says "additionally" I taekthis to be considering a different scenario, one in which a team might try to go to uncontested scrums by bringing on a non-front row replacement for an injured prop. Quite why they add this is not clear – I would guess there was something else in the original query. However the point is underlined that you must make every effort to keep contested scrums, but if you can’t, Exception 2 cannot be used for other reasons.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian

You are only allowed to bring back on a substituted (tactical) prop in cases of blood injury, YC, etc. A replaced (injured prop) is not available to return. hence 4th official has to have clear verbal or usually written subs/reps cards with reason for sub/rep.

The other issue is that if you have run out of your allocated replacements (at first or second time of asking depending on the level you play at), then the RFU League and Cup Regs clearly state the scrums should go uncontested. The team involved is under no requirement to bring anyone back on, even if they have a substituted prop to come back on - and I am sure would first weigh up the tactical benefits of doing so.

"per se" Simon.
I know what the Law says, I'm just saying its not intrinsically unfair as long as it doesn't restore the team to a full complement.

What if the team with 15 players were doing their opponent's scrum over. They would feel somewhat aggrieved if they now had UC scrums. A one man disadvantage with that man being the missing prop and UC scrums is not a disadvantage at all really. Some might argue that having a prop go off injured in these circumstances might actually be a clever tactical ploy, weighing up that nullifying the opponent's scrum dominance might be worth the sacrifice of playing a man short.

If I was a coach I would consider it... 7 v 8 in UC scrums and a full complement of seven backs to defend/attack with.


The 2009 Laws allow some competitions to have rolling substitutions. How would that work in this case?

 

[Simon Thomas]

Ian - referees have to deal with the Laws as written, and the competition rules the organising body makes. If either leaves a 'window of opportunity' for coaches to use then that is down to the inadequacies of the legislators !

It is not down to me, or my fellow referees to say if it is unfair or not.

We have had rolling subs for a few seasons already at youth level and the same rules apply - replaced (injured) can't come back on, subbed (tactical) can.

The RFU Leagues are not using rolling subs as far as I know.

Other Merit Table competitions have used rolling subs and unconmtested scrums for years and in one case - The Canterbury Shield for 2nd and 3rd XVs of the National League clubs mainly - matches can even start with uncontested scrums.

 

[OB..]

in one case - The Canterbury Shield for 2nd and 3rd XVs of the National League clubs mainly - matches can even start with uncontested scrums.

At least two cases - we allow it as well.

 

[Davet]

Ian, you wouldn't be suggesting a FR forward would fake an injury to ensure UC scrums, would you?

I can't believe any side would be so cynical as to pull that sort of sting operation, it would be a black day, and if any side were so yellow as to do that then they should get the book thrown at them. You may think my comments a little waspish, but such an act should really get a club fined about 250,000 Euros, at the going rate.

 

[triage]

I see no problem (per se) with bringing a previously replaced prop on to make scrums contested, but just as you would if a prop had been sent off, someone else has to go off to get the numbers down to 14.

as the prop was replaced he is not permitted to reappear under any circumstance....if he had have been substituted I would agree....but replaced players are not permitted to rejoin even for blood substitutions.


edit didn't see the next page of replies so repeated content

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian, you wouldn't be suggesting a FR forward would fake an injury to ensure UC scrums, would you?

I can't believe any side would be so cynical as to pull that sort of sting operation, it would be a black day, and if any side were so yellow as to do that then they should get the book thrown at them. You may think my comments a little waspish, but such an act should really get a club fined about 250,000 Euros, at the going rate.

Yes, I am suggesting exactly that.... teams who do such things should be regarded as pests! :biggrin:

You are only allowed to bring back on a substituted (tactical) prop in cases of blood injury, YC, etc. A replaced (injured prop) is not available to return. hence 4th official has to have clear verbal or usually written subs/reps cards with reason for sub/rep.

Simon, Law 3.12 would seem to be a variance with what you are saying here.

3.12 SUBSTITUTED PLAYERS REJOINING THE MATCH
If a player is substituted, that player must not return and play in that match even to replace an injured player.
Exception 1: a substituted player may replace a player with a bleeding or open wound.
Exception 2: a substituted player may replace a front row player when injured, temporarily suspended or sent off.

Now w.r.t. to original scenario

LAW 3 DEFINITIONS
A Team. A team consists of fifteen players who start the match plus any
authorised replacements and/or substitutes.
Replacement. A player who replaces an injured team-mate.
Substitute. A player who replaces a team-mate for tactical reasons.

The original wording of the application for a Ruling was

"At this stage, Team A seek permission from the match officials for their substituted hooker to rejoin the match in an attempt to bring their playing numbers back to 15."

They were asking to bring on the Hooker, not the previously replaced Prop. Assuming that they have used the correct wording i.a.w. Law 3 Definitions, it means that the hooker they wanted to bring on did not go off for injury, he went off for tactical reasons.

In my original post here I suggested that the hooker might be allowed to come back on, but someone else would have to go off as per a prop being sent off to get numbers back down to 14

EDIT NOTE: There appears to be no mention of whether the hooker they wanted to bring on was STE

 

[Simon Thomas]

Ian - yet again the IRB use of words leaves confusing. My comments in red and additions to make sense of it in blue.

What I said originally :

You are only allowed to bring back on a substituted (tactical) prop in cases of blood injury, YC, etc. A replaced (injured prop) is not available to return. hence 4th official has to have clear verbal or usually written subs/reps cards with reason for sub/rep.

3.12 SUBSTITUTED PLAYERS REJOINING THE MATCH
If a player is substituted, that player must not return and play in that match even to replace an injured player.
Exception 1: a substituted player may replace a player with a bleeding or open wound. we have no difference of interpretation about that one[/COLOR]
Exception 2: a substituted player may replace a front row player when injured, temporarily suspended or sent off. this what I said above


a substituted player (A) may replace a front row player (B) when (B) is injured, temporarily suspended or sent off.

That is how the Law and Reg is interpreted in England at least. I am not at variance with Law 3.12 Exception 2 at all.