scenario from a recent Level 8 match

[Toby Warren]

That's all good but I terrible with recalling faces and names, I check how many they've selected on the card but in this case (ie first change) unless someone pointed it out to me I wouldn't have noticed it wasn't a player I'd briefed.

I'd have clocked at the 2nd change and probally stopped the player who IS STE from going in the front row! :sad:

 

[TheBFG]

Can they have more than 4 STE (I assume it's a minimum of 4) players as long as they're marked on the card?

 

[ex-lucy]

i dont expect perfection ... we are all merely human
i expect assessors to know the laws etc or at least check them before advising a ref that he is right when in fact he is not.

 

[Jacko]

Can they have more than 4 STE (I assume it's a minimum of 4) players as long as they're marked on the card?

Absolutely.

 

[Toby Warren]

In that case do they have to replace in the event of a 2nd injury?

 

[Phil E]

That's all good but I terrible with recalling faces and names, I check how many they've selected on the card but in this case (ie first change) unless someone pointed it out to me I wouldn't have noticed it wasn't a player I'd briefed.

I'd have clocked at the 2nd change and probally stopped the player who IS STE from going in the front row! :sad:

Toby, if it's a league match then I jot the names of the FR replacement(s) on the back of my score card (from the league card).

I also note each replacement/Sub at T (for tactical) or I (for Injury).
This from a game a few seasons ago where one team wanted to bring a FR back on as a replacment and I wasn't sure if he had gone off as an injury (so couldnt come back) or tactical.

 

[Jabba]

Don't HAVE to replace 2nd time but will be down to 14 and UC. Might be winning by 40 points with 5 mins left and don't fancy going in!

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I also note each replacement/Sub at T (for tactical) or I (for Injury).

Ditto

 

[OB..]

i dont expect perfection ... we are all merely human
i expect assessors to know the laws etc

I expect referees to know the laws. Mostly they do, but sometimes ...

or at least check them before advising a ref that he is right when in fact he is not.

If he has some reason to suspect he might be wrong. Do you really treat the opinion of an assessor with that much respect? :wink:

(I do not take a law book with me to a debrief. If the referee and I disagree on a point of law I will suggest we check it afterwards.)

 

[Taff]

Can they have more than 4 STE (I assume it's a minimum of 4) players as long as they're marked on the card?

Yes. There's a Ruling on it somewhere - sorry but I don't have my file handy to give you the number.

I also note each replacement/Sub at T (for tactical) or I (for Injury).

Ditto

Funnily enough I did the same until my Is and Ts started merging into each other when written in the same column. I now mark them "S" for substituted and "R" for replaced. Only players marked "S" can come back on.

 

[OB..]

Yes. There's a Ruling on it somewhere - sorry but I don't have my file handy to give you the number.

I can't find such a Ruling, but I don't think we need one. Front row replacements can come from the bench or from players on the field. There is a required number in Law 3 ie minimum but no maximum.

 

[Dixie]

But we haven't resolved the question, have we? I'd say that if we go uncontested, then we need a man off at L.8. I don't agree that the county prop has to be treated the same as the official replacement; he was clearly STE, but not up to the job and ducked out so the official replacement could be used. That official replacement should indeed be up to the job - and ducking out after 3 scrums with a light injury sounds suspiciously like the suspicions that led to the man-off rule in the first place.

The "man-off" ruling is too complicated as it stands - it should simply say that the team that causes uncontested scrums plays with one fewer players for the rest of the game - whether at the first, second or 10th time of asking.

 

[Taff]

The ruling I'd seen was Ruling 9/2003. The bold are my additions, but they do make it clear you can select "an additional replacement front row at the expense of another position".

(1) "A team must have a minimum of two replacements who are suitably trained and experienced to ensure that on the first occasion a replacement hooker is required, and/or the first occasion a replacement prop is required the team can continue to play safely with contested scrums. This would mean that teams have the option of selecting a replacement hooker and a replacement prop capable of playing in both tight head and loose head positions; or of selecting an additional replacement front row at the expense of another position."

I don't quite know why the answer is in quotation marks - perhaps they're just restating a previous clarification?