Ruling: 5 : 2009

[Dixie]

Ian - yet again the IRB use of words leaves confusing.

it may not be just an iRB problem!:biggrin:

 

[Simon Thomas]

nice lunch at Oxo Tower, so tipping very carful write now :wink:

 

[Dixie]

2nd this week, IIRC. You must be settling neatly into those low-backed chairs by now.

 

[Simon Thomas]

no hard chair today Dixie - we took the air and sat out on the balcony !

 

[Ian_Cook]

What I said originally :

You are only allowed to bring back on a substituted (tactical) prop in cases of blood injury, YC, etc.

I disagree with that!

It is EMPHATICALLY NOT what Exception 2 states;

Exception 2: a substituted player may replace a front row player when injured, temporarily suspended or sent off.

Exception 2 does NOT say anything about a blood injury. "Injured, temporarily suspended or sent off" in this sentence refers to the "front row player" NOT the "substituted player".

Exception 1 allows a substituted player to come on for ANY player in ANY position for blood.

Additionally;

Exception 2 allows a substituted player to come on for FRONT ROW PLAYERS ONLY, for injury or a card.

I read Exception 2 as meaning that if the front row player is going off because he is injured or carded, then an earlier tactically substituted front rower can come back on. Since Exception 2 refers to a substituted player, that player must, by definition, be uninjured.

So if we now go through what the original request asks (and I will add highlights and comments);

Background: Early in a match Team A replace their tighthead prop (a replacement), 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 (who must have been tactically substituted earlier) 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.

► The tighthead prop was replaced (injury)
► some time later, the hooker was substituted (tactical)
► The new tighthead prop was then injured

Why cannot the hooker who was a tactical substitition come back on.?

Exception 2 to Law 3.12 allows it, and I cannot understand why you think it doesn't.

 

[OB..]

From Ruling 5:-
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.

Why cannot the hooker who was a tactical substitition come back on.?

Exception 2 to Law 3.12 allows it, and I cannot understand why you think it doesn't.

AIUI your argument is that although the Designated Members say that is the purpose, the actual wording doesn't, therefore it isn't.

Your view would mean that ANY substituted player could replace an injured front row player, just to make up the numbers, but could not similarly replace a player in another position.

We have had other examples of the Designated Members making law eg the brand new distinction between leaving a maul involuntarily and voluntarily. In this case it is a not unreasonable assertion as to the intent, so I can't get worked up about it.

 

[Ian_Cook]

From Ruling 5:-
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.

Exactly, and this is what they wanted; a front row player (the hooker) to replace an injured player (the replacement THP)

Your view would mean that ANY substituted player could replace an injured front row player, just to make up the numbers, but could not similarly replace a player in another position.

No at all. This is restricted to STE players under Law 3.5

3.5 SUITABLY TRAINED AND EXPERIENCED PLAYERS IN THE FRONT
ROW
(b) Each player in the front row and any potential replacement(s) must be suitably trained and experienced

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

So, why not allow the hooker (who was a tactical sub and is presumably STE) to to come on, but another player goes off so that Team A does not subvert Law 3.12 to get their numbers back up to 15.

IMO, this ruling has given cunning coaches another way to get UC scrums if they are under pressure.

Wasps will be happy with this ruling I imagine!

 

[OB..]

In this case the referee had ordered uncontested scrums, so you no longer need an STE player in the front row.

 

[Ian_Cook]

In this case the referee had ordered uncontested scrums, so you no longer need an STE player in the front row.

So what happens in the following scenarios;

Warning! I'm going to take the piss here a bit, because IMO, that's what a cunning coach is going to do with this ruling...

In the set of circumstances laid out in the request for a Ruling

Scenario 1 - The replacement THP has a blood injury before the referee orders UC scrums

Can the substituted hooker come on under Exception 1
If so, since we now have a fully STE FR, will the scrums be contested?
If so, how many times can the THP keep going off with blood injuries?

Scenario 2 - The replacement THP is YC or RC
Can the substituted hooker come on under Exception 1
If so, since we now have a fully STE FR, will the scrums be contested?


I can see this Ruling making the Law open to abuse in two ways

► Team A wants to keep scrums contested because they are kicking arse in the scrums, and are prepared to play one man short to achieve this.

or more likely,

► Team A is getting a toweling in the scrums and they want scrums uncontested, and are prepared to play one man short in order to achieve this, and this is how they do it;

1. They have a hooker and two or three other subs on the bench who have not yet been used.

2. The THP is injured, but carries on temporarily until the cunning coach can put his dastardly plan into action.

3. Before the next scrum, they deliberately make tactical substitutions of the hooker and all the remaining players so that there are no players left on the bench.

4. At the next scrum, the THP crys off injured, leaving themselves one player short in a 7-man uncontested scrum. (this will worry them not one bit)

IMO, this ruling leaves a gaping loophole, and I predict in the coming GP season, at least one team will use it;

Question: Is Phil Vickery still playing?

 

[OB..]

In the set of circumstances laid out in the request for a Ruling

Scenario 1 - The replacement THP has a blood injury before the referee orders UC scrums

Can the substituted hooker come on under Exception 1
If so, since we now have a fully STE FR, will the scrums be contested?
If so, how many times can the THP keep going off with blood injuries?

A hooker is not necessarily STE to play prop.
If he is, then when the referee asks about a replacement, the answer will be "Yes, under Exception 1".
If he is not, there will be uncontested scrums until the THP comes back on.
There is no formal limit on the number of times a player can go off for a blood injury. The referee can insist a player stays off the field under Law 3.9.

Scenario 2 - The replacement THP is YC or RC
Can the substituted hooker come on under Exception 1
If so, since we now have a fully STE FR, will the scrums be contested?

Comments on STE as above. Exception 2 applies, another player goes off, and contested scrums may continue.

In your flying pigs scenario, Team A simply declares that the hooker is not STE as a prop. They get uncontested scrums and can put anybody in the front row, continuing with 15 players on the field and reserves on the bench.

 

[Ian_Cook]

In your flying pigs scenario, Team A simply declares that the hooker is not STE as a prop. They get uncontested scrums and can put anybody in the front row, continuing with 15 players on the field and reserves on the bench.

Don't teams in the NH/Europe/England have to declare which of their subs are STE before the match starts?

In the case if elite teams, it will be fairly well known who is STE and who is not.

 

[Dixie]

In the case if elite teams, it will be fairly well known who is STE and who is not.

We had an incident in which Steve Thompson, the England hooker, was playing flanker for his club. There was a front row injury that couldn't be covered from the subs bench, and the referee duly asked the question, was told that there was no front row cover, and correctly went uncontested. It was alleged that Thompson was carrying a neck injury, and so was not a feasible FR candidate.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Wonder what would happen to SA if John smit was playing prop as he currently is, then both hookers went down!!!

 

[Davet]

In the scenario from the ruling, if the hooker was ste as prop, and we could keep to contested scrums then he is OK to come on. This could even be a former 2nds or back row, or even a back, depending on level some players are utility all over the park.

But - having used all their bench, they cannot then go to what ould effectively be rolling subs. If they are down to 14 becaiuse they have used the bench, and were a winger short they wouldn't be allowed to bring back a player who had been substituted - so why should they smply becuase its a FR forward?

As the ruling makes clear, if it would allow contested scrums to continue then fine, if not - not.

 

[Ian_Cook]

As the ruling makes clear, if it would allow contested scrums to continue then fine, if not - not.

But it doesn't Davet. That is the whole issue I have with this ruling. Team A wanted to bring the hooker (previously tactically subbed off) back on. This hooker MUST have been STE for FR, otherwise the match would not have been allowed to start with contested scrums in the first place!

IMO Team A ought to be allowed to bring back the hooker, (as long as he WAS STE for prop, and it meant contested scrums could continue), but since they already had used up all their replacements, I would require another player to go off, just as I would if Team A was down to 14 players under a YC or RC.

Otherwise, despite OB's jibe about a flying pigs scenario, this ruling allows teams another avenue to get UC scrums if the are getting a caning.

Similarly, if they are wanting to retain contested scrums, and don't want the ref ruling UC scrums, then the injured prop could become a "blood" injured prop (using real blood this time) then the Hooker can come on under 3.12 Exception1.

 

[OB..]

IMO Team A ought to be allowed to bring back the hooker, (as long as he WAS STE for prop, and it meant contested scrums could continue), but since they already had used up all their replacements, I would require another player to go off, just as I would if Team A was down to 14 players under a YC or RC.

But the provision under Law 3.13 (b) for getting another player to go off only applies when a FR player is carded, not when he is injured.

If the hooker is STE as a prop, then he can simply replace the injured prop under 3.12 Exception 2.

If there is nobody who can safely play prop, the referee orders uncontested scrums, and the Ruling says that Exception 2 does not apply. Therefore the team has to play one short.

 

[Ian_Cook]

...
If the hooker is STE as a prop, then he can simply replace the injured prop under 3.12 Exception 2

Exactly right, and exactly what I am saying, but the officials wouldn't allow it and the DM's agreed with them.

 

[OB..]

Exactly right, and exactly what I am saying, but the officials wouldn't allow it and the DM's agreed with them.

But the hooker was not STE as a prop:
"... the Captain of Team A, who confirms his side cannot replace their injured prop with a suitably trained and experienced prop forward, ..."
Therefore bringing him on would not allow contested scrums.
Therefore, under the Ruling, Exception 2 does not apply.

 

[Dixie]

Planet Rugby has an interesting take on the meaning of Ruling 5. http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_5500244,00.html

In their view

The new law states that once all front row replacements have been utilised, and there is a further front row injury, and no fit front row player is available from the original starting team or replacement bench, the injured player will leave the field but may not be replaced. This is a change to the existing Laws and ensures that a team going to uncontested scrums does not gain an advantage.

The ruling actually says that this situation applies once ALL replacements have been utilised. It doesn't say what should happen if all FR replacements have been used but there remain other replacements on the bench. As usual with iRB laws rulings, the rationale of this one is unclear. On the one hand, it implies that the intention of the exception to 3.12 should be respected, in that a replaced player should only return if contested scrums can thereby continue. On the other, the second paragraph implies that the key criterion is that all the permitted replacements and subs have already been made.

Another fine mess! Where do they find these people? (answer: Dublin, Ireland. Let's not even go there!).

 

[Ian_Cook]

Planet Rugby has an interesting take on the meaning of Ruling 5. http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_5500244,00.html

In their view The ruling actually says that this situation applies once ALL replacements have been utilised. It doesn't say what should happen if all FR replacements have been used but there remain other replacements on the bench. As usual with iRB laws rulings, the rationale of this one is unclear. On the one hand, it implies that the intention of the exception to 3.12 should be respected, in that a replaced player should only return if contested scrums can thereby continue. On the other, the second paragraph implies that the key criterion is that all the permitted replacements and subs have already been made.

Another fine mess! Where do they find these people? (answer: Dublin, Ireland. Let's not even go there!).

In fact Dixie, it says that on the iRB website

Once all front row replacements have been utilised, and there is a further front row injury, and no fit front row player is available from the original starting team or replacement bench, the injured player will leave the field but may not be replaced. This is a change to the existing Laws and ensures, in playing with 14 men, that a team going to uncontested scrums does not gain an advantage

http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2033086.html#irb+acts+uncontested+scrums

See also

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=6986