[Scrum] Season 2018-19 - New guidance is scrums must have 8 v 8 even after yellow card

[CrouchTPEngage]

I was told at a society regional meeting that we have new guidance this season that at level 5 and below that all scrums must now be 8 v 8 players.
So when a team loses a forward ( not a FR ) due to a yellow-card, they must supply one of the backs into the scrum to make the numners even.
At the time, I was told that this was to bring the lower-levels more into line with the U19 variation as there was a safety issue with unbalanced scrums.

However, I can't find any guidance or reference to this in writing. Indeed , I can only find the opposite in the laws which state that we should allow 8 v 7 !

My question is
(a) Has anyone else heard of this guidance this season
(b) If so, is there anything in writing.

I'm starting to get the feeling that I was misinformed.

Cheers

 

[Flish]

Only if uncontested, otherwise it can be a mismatch (assuming adult regs), unless i’ve missed something too?

 

[chbg]

We had an Urban Myths thread some time ago ...

 

[didds]

we've certainly discussed this scenario before... and as was pointed out back then this is stupid as it doesn;t appear to consider shortedned sided matches.

* game of 12 v 12 (probably lower team not full sides available), blue v red
* scrum 5 v 5

Then under this alleged regulation, blue 2nd row gets a YC

* scrums now 8 v 8
* leaving backlines of 4 for red and 3 for blue


Including the scrum halves. So away from the scrum is 3 red v 2 blue.

Could you please contact your society regional manager/chair/secretary/whoever and ask them for advice in this scenario? I'd LOVE to hear their response!

didds

 

[crossref]

didds our Society did give guidance on this , and said we should use common sense .
If teams are short and have been packing down all game with less than eight then the starting point when going uncontested is to keep scrum numbers the same as what they were when they were contested

 

[didds]

eminbently sensible. Is CTPE in the same society incidentally - Is LSRFUR (you) the same as "London Society" (CTPE) ? If so he clearly didn't get the memo!

But of course if that isn't spelled out, and blanket "8 v 8" regs are issued some ref somewhere, at sometime, will end up with the scenario I outlined. Bless their little cotton socks.

didds

 

[Camquin]

Worse - unless they fixed it, the 8v8 was included in the 10 and 7s variants.
Though I have yet to see an uncontested scrum in 7s.

 

[crossref]

eminbently sensible. Is CTPE in the same society incidentally - Is LSRFUR (you) the same as "London Society" (CTPE) ? If so he clearly didn't get the memo!

But of course if that isn't spelled out, and blanket "8 v 8" regs are issued some ref somewhere, at sometime, will end up with the scenario I outlined. Bless their little cotton socks.

didds

I haven't seen a memo, but there has been discussion at meetings and on Facebook to that effect. .. who knows what proportion of London refs that has reached .

Societies are put in a difficult position I think, it would be problematic to distribute written instructions that contradict the Law Book...

In practice games with less than 15 players are lower level merit table games, and this situation won't be the only one where common sense is needed. I think most refs would apply it

 

[didds]

"most" being the operative word ;-)

didds

 

[crossref]

On the other hand, if there was an assessor watching, whom you didn't know , there would be a massive pressure on your mind to shrug your shoulders and follow the Law Book.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Local directive that ADD restrictions etc to the law book are not contradictions. They are additional requirements and are allowed by WR. What you can't do is remove WR requlations.

So you can make a scrum uncontested at any level you choose. Or you can (as we do in Wales) say that the old "must blow the whistle and NO advantage" at collapsed scrums does not apply at leveler below the Welsh Premiership etc. YOu can't allow a "full" push at U19 because that "removes a safelty regulation"

Inshort laws can be "stricter not "softer".


That al said this seems to be a miss reading by someone. Sadly we have been told " Uncontested scrums caused by a card casue 8V8 in the scrum evem if your were are 8 V 7 before the card. I see the sense in enforcing the maintaining 8 V 7 not 8 V 8.

Get it in writing is my advise, if you can.

With assessors (not all attend society meetings, just like refs!) I tend to bring up the odd "new" regulations / directives before the game. to make sure they are aware of them. Mind you at my stage of my career if I am pulled up for an error that is in fact the assessors error. I give my opinion, smile and move on. I then send a note to the head of the advisors with the relevent documentation supporting my position. After all advisors also need to keep up.