STR Uncontested scrums

[Shelflife]

Blue have a sub hooker and prop. At half time they replace the hooker. 60mins and the replacement hooker is sin binned. Scrum follows and I ask capt to sort out FR. He says uncontested scrums as original hooker is injured.

I insist on sub prop to go in to hooker and we continue with uncontested scrum. 3.13.b

was I correct to insist that a suitably trained front row player goes into the front row when one is available even if it's going to be uncontested as he's not a hooker.

 

[FightOrFlight]

Blue have a sub hooker and prop. At half time they replace the hooker. 60mins and the replacement hooker is sin binned. Scrum follows and I ask capt to sort out FR. He says uncontested scrums as original hooker is injured.

I insist on sub prop to go in to hooker and we continue with uncontested scrum. 3.13.b

was I correct to insist that a suitably trained front row player goes into the front row when one is available even if it's going to be uncontested as he's not a hooker.

If it's uncontested it should not matter who is in the FR. Unless you are going to contest you should not need to ask for a suitable FR.

 

[crossref]

There is a Law clarification that says that team must put STE players in the front row, if they have them.. Even when uncontested

So you were right.

In games with no man off (youth, international, some merit tables and some counties ) its an unfair ruling as the team who run out of front row get to bring on a speedy flanker, where as the other team still have to play their props.

 

[Dixie]

Crossref trumps FightorFlight. It's not an easy clarification to find, because it derives from Law 3 (The Team) rather than law 20 (The Scrum). It says:

Clarification 1 2011

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling1-2011
UnionRFU
Law Reference3
Date18 May 2011
Request
Formal request for clarification on Law 3.12(b) which states:

“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.”

This request arises from the England v France match earlier this year. Hendre Fourie (a back row player) was brought on as a replacement for Dan Cole (a prop). The other England prop had been replaced earlier due to injury. Dylan Hartley (the hooker) had been tactically replaced earlier in the game. The view of our Laws Sub-committee is that, even though the match was to continue with uncontested scrums, under Law 3.12(b) Hartley should have been brought on instead of Fourie, because he is a front row player, even though he had already been replaced.

We wish for this to be clarified to ensure that there is no confusion if a similar situation arises during the Rugby World Cup.
Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
If after a succession of injuries to front row players a further injury occurs to a front row player and there is a replacement front row player who has not been used that player must be used to replace the injured front row player even if the referee has to order uncontested scrums.

If after a succession of injuries to front row players a further injury occurs to a front row player and all the front row replacements have been used then a substituted front row player must be used to replace the injured front row player even if the referee has to order uncontested scrums, unless the referee has ordered uncontested scrums prior to the injury to the front row player and the team has used all its replacement players in which case the front row player is not replaced.

This stems from a period when weak scrummagers would engineer an uncontested scrum, then replace the fat boys with flanker types - while their blameless oppo still had three lumps of lard on the pitch.

 

[crossref]

Here is the clarification
http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?domain=10&clarlaw=3&clarification=77

The second sentence is exactly your scenario, right?

(although the last time we discussed this we spent some time trying to parse the bit that comes after "unless...")

 

[TheBFG]

Little tip, when they "sub" a FR player make sure you know if it's a Technical sub or for Injury :wink: (trust me it may come back to bite you on the arse!)

 

[crossref]

Little tip, when they "sub" a FR player make sure you know if it's a Technical sub or for Injury :wink: (trust me it may come back to bite you on the arse!)

but even then - -if they say 'injury' then its unequivocal, but if they say 'technical', they can always discover an injury after he's left the field.

so, when asked, aren't they most likely to always say 'technical' so that they can keep their options open ?

 

[Pegleg]

but even then - -if they say 'injury' then its unequivocal, but if they say 'technical', they can always discover an injury after he's left the field.

so, when asked, aren't they most likely to always say 'technical' so that they can keep their options open ?

Absolutely!

 

[Phil E]

but even then - -if they say 'injury' then its unequivocal, but if they say 'technical', they can always discover an injury after he's left the field.

so, when asked, aren't they most likely to always say 'technical' so that they can keep their options open ?

If they say technical to everything, that's fine. Nothing you can do about it. And I agree a smart coach will say technical to everything.

But if they say Injury, then there are implications.




Cue black knight sketch.

 

[Simon Thomas]

but even then - -if they say 'injury' then its unequivocal, but if they say 'technical', they can always discover an injury after he's left the field.

so, when asked, aren't they most likely to always say 'technical' so that they can keep their options open ?

Switched on coaches will always say technical, even if it is blindly obvious the FR player is badly injured. But even then I have seen some miracle recoveries.

 

[irishref]

Nick Evans being carried off and them saying "it's technical" in the bloodgate match springs to mind.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

If they say technical to everything, that's fine. Nothing you can do about it. And I agree a smart coach will say technical to everything.

But if they say Injury, then there are implications.




Cue black knight sketch.

'Tis but a scratch!

View attachment 3036

 

[FlipFlop]

Switched on coaches will always say technical, even if it is blindly obvious the FR player is badly injured. But even then I have seen some miracle recoveries.

But surely as a ref, you can say No - that is clearly an injury. And note it as such.

 

[crossref]

But surely as a ref, you can say No - that is clearly an injury. And note it as such.

As a ref you can force soemone to leave the pitch if he's not fit to play ... but he's leaving the pitch anyway, so would you get into a dispute about it?

the time for the ref to intervene seems to me to be when/if the player attempts to come back on, and you don't let him.

Seems to me that, now we have interchanges, the concept of 'injured' is genuinely hazy and ambiguous. How do you count an asthma attack, or cramp, or a kick in the groin, or a dead leg. Each of those presents a clearly temporary incapacity .

when he leaves the field : is he leaving the pitch because - at that moment - he's unfit to play? Well yes
But is he injured in the sense that the referee should prevent him coming back on pitch. No, clearly you can recover from all those things, So call it technical. or don't get into it.

 

[Phil E]

With interchanges a player is allowed to return to play, after coming off for an injury.
But if he goes off again for a second injury, his game is done.

[LAWS]A Player who suffers two injuries in a match which has necessitated that
Player being replaced on each occasion is not permitted to act as a
replacement following the second injury.[/LAWS]

 

[Shelflife]

Cheers lads, I was happy enough that I was correct, capt/coach pissed me off by saying that they had no other FR player on the bench when I knew for a fact that they had (had taken a note of the STR at beginning of game) so then when I asked where no 17 was his first answer was IDK.

It was only when I said ok lets continue but there is a report going into the branch that no 17 suddenly appeared on the sideline (suddenly appearing as in taking off his tracksuit top).

Hate that type of bullshit.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

To paraphrase the old joke:

Q: How do you know when a coach is talking bullshit?

A: His lips are moving!

:biggrin:

 

[crossref]

With interchanges a player is allowed to return to play, after coming off for an injury.
But if he goes off again for a second injury, his game is done.

[LAWS]A Player who suffers two injuries in a match which has necessitated that
Player being replaced on each occasion is not permitted to act as a
replacement following the second injury.[/LAWS]

yes, but what's an injury?
- is being winded in 'injury' ?
- is being fat and knackered and needing a rest an injury?
either of those might lead a coach to rest a player for 10 minutes.

It seems to me all a ref can really do is be aware of players on the pitch, and coming on to the pitch, and notice any signs that they are unfit to play.

 

[Phil E]

yes, but what's an injury?
- is being winded in 'injury' ?
- is being fat and knackered and needing a rest an injury?
either of those might lead a coach to rest a player for 10 minutes.

It seems to me all a ref can really do is be aware of players on the pitch, and coming on to the pitch, and notice any signs that they are unfit to play.

Not the referees call.
Coach must decide.
Referee just needs to be notified, or told if he asks ("coach, tactical or injury?")

However.............................

[LAWS]Not more than two Player Interchanges per team may occur at any one
time and may only occur during a stoppage in play and with the
knowledge of the Referee who is entitled in his sole opinion to refuse to
allow or postpone a Player Interchange if he believes either that the
Player Interchange would prevent the opposition from restarting the
game quickly or where a Player has been injured or that it would not be
safe for the replacement Player who has been previously injured to play
in the match.[/LAWS]

 

[Shelflife]

Interesting, I brought up the situation at a meeting tonight. I was told that once the subbed hooker couldn't replace the YC hooker then uncontested scrums come into being. Once UCS come into being anyone can go into the front row.

Its only where here they want to replace a FR player that a FR sub must be used.