STR Uncontested scrums

[Simon Thomas]

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

Indeed you can, and some often do.

Depends on type of match, level, and age group as to how you then enforce your view. When it relates to FR it is a safety issue and we have clear (or complicated flow chart) guidelines to follow.

 

[crossref]

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.

Shrug, that's the common sense answer, but it's wrong.. the IRB ruled otherwise in 2011, see Dixie's post at the top of the thread.

Of course, the IRB ruling makes little sense. It clearly is safe for a non STE player to be in front row, every UCS contains at least one, by definition.

 

[FlipFlop]

Shrug, that's the common sense answer, but it's wrong.. the IRB ruled otherwise in 2011, see Dixie's post at the top of the thread.

Of course, the IRB ruling makes little sense. It clearly is safe for a non STE player to be in front row, every UCS contains at least one, by definition.

The IRB ruling is not about safety. It is about the spirit of rugby. It is to stop one team removing it's front row and having 6 back row on the field. It's about trying to keep as close as possible to the requirement of having a contested FR - at least have the FR players on the field. I think it makes perfect sense.

 

[crossref]

The IRB ruling is not about safety. It is about the spirit of rugby. It is to stop one team removing it's front row and having 6 back row on the field. It's about trying to keep as close as possible to the requirement of having a contested FR - at least have the FR players on the field. I think it makes perfect sense.

Well for me it breaks the spirit of rugby.

Red prop is broken, so we go uncontested, and [when there is no man-off] red bring on a speedy flanker to replace him.
Blue have to continue with two fat props.

Red - who are the ones who caused uncontested remember - have the advantage! WTF?

This is only a problem in games where there is no man-off (Some merit leagues, Internationals, Youth Games, Gloucestershire), but it was out of one of those games that the IRB made their unfair ruling.

 

[TheBFG]

the point of asking if a sub is a Tech or Injury is to cover your ar$e.

As has been mentioned coaches can be a sneaky breed :wink: so when a FR goes off ask the question, if they say "Tech" and then later he's required to come back and they say "he's now injured" that's fine, but at least (if required) you have the information to report!

As for the OP, I think you got it spot on.

 

[RobLev]

Well for me it breaks the spirit of rugby.

Red prop is broken, so we go uncontested, and [when there is no man-off] red bring on a speedy flanker to replace him.
Blue have to continue with two fat props.

Red - who are the ones who caused uncontested remember - have the advantage! WTF?

...

In the OP (and in the ruling you criticise as breaking the spirit of rugby) it's the team causing uncontested scrums that was (or should have been according to the ruling) prevented from taking advantage by avoiding bringing on a FR replacement. For Red to get away with it in your scenario they have to have broken a total of 3 FR players.

 

[crossref]

The team causing uncontested scrums is the one that (by definition) doesn't have a STE FR replacement....

Yes, in the Englad France game it was further complicated by the fact that England were a prop short , had no STE prop but did have Hartley still fit, who was STE Hooker. I agree there would have been no unfairness in making him come on.

But down in the weeds of Age-Group rugby, where I see this all the time it's much starker --
- age group teams typically are short of numbers and have few STE subs, so do frequently run out
- so uncontested scrums toward the end of the game happen quite a lot
- and there is no man off
- which means the team causing the uncontested scrum gets to bring on their speedy flanker, but the other team are prevented from doing the same.
- so the team causing uncontested scrums gain an advantage.

If there was man off then would be different, as the speedy flanker doesn't get to come on.
But at age group level I wouldn't have man-off (better to have kids playing then shivering at sideline), but I would relax the requirement to have your STE players on the pitch.

 

[RobLev]

The team causing uncontested scrums is the one that (by definition) doesn't have a STE FR replacement....

A STE THP/Hooker/LHP replacement... You go uncontested when you can't fill the specialist FR role; but you must still put a FR replacement back if you've got one, even if he's been previously tactically substituted. Hence my comment that you must have broken 3 FR players (assuming 4+subs) before being allowed to put a flanker in.

Yes, in the Englad France game it was further complicated by the fact that England were a prop short , had no STE prop but did have Hartley still fit, who was STE Hooker. I agree there would have been no unfairness in making him come on.

But down in the weeds of Age-Group rugby, where I see this all the time it's much starker --
- age group teams typically are short of numbers and have few STE subs, so do frequently run out
- so uncontested scrums toward the end of the game happen quite a lot
- and there is no man off
- which means the team causing the uncontested scrum gets to bring on their speedy flanker, but the other team are prevented from doing the same.
- so the team causing uncontested scrums gain an advantage.

If, but only if, they have broken the substituted STE FR players - tactically substituted FR players must come back on to replace injured FR players. If, as is usual, they have declared that their substitutions have been tactical (see other thread), then the FR player come back on - even if he then limps off. By this time, of course, they'll be running out of substitutes/substitutions...

If there was man off then would be different, as the speedy flanker doesn't get to come on.
But at age group level I wouldn't have man-off (better to have kids playing then shivering at sideline), but I would relax the requirement to have your STE players on the pitch.

Relaxing the requirement gives the weaker FR the incentive to be "injured" so as to force uncontested and get their speedy back row subs on instead...

 

[crossref]

the world of age group rugby I inhabit just isn't like that.

I just don't see teams conniving to fake injuries, and to force uncontested scrums.

I do see teams with only one, or none at all, STE replacements, quite genuinely running of STE players.

And as a consequence once we go uncontested I see one team able to freely make substitutions to put speedy player in the Front Row (and change him if it doesn't work, for a different player) while the other team must keep their props on the field.

 

[RobLev]

the world of age group rugby I inhabit just isn't like that.

I just don't see teams conniving to fake injuries, and to force uncontested scrums.

I do see teams with only one, or none at all, STE replacements, quite genuinely running of STE players.

And as a consequence once we go uncontested I see one team able to freely make substitutions to put speedy player in the Front Row (and change him if it doesn't work, for a different player) while the other team must keep their props on the field.

How many subs would a team that can't comply with the STE rules typically have?

 

[crossref]

How many subs would a team that can't comply with the STE rules typically have?

In our league teams are limited to seven subs, but there is no requirement that any of them are STE.
http://images.leaguerepublic.com/data/documents/616512907-league_rules_201415.pdf

Most clubs play league games with fewer than seven subs - many don't have that many players, also there is a feeling that if you bring young kids out for a game, then you really should give them some time on the field, and for a league game to give meaninful game time to all seven subs would mean weakening the team unnecessarily. Better to play with three or four subs, and plan for everyone to play at least one half (interchanges are unlimited)

Most of the time you will find one or more STE subs, but not always. It's often one. Sometimes 2, sometimes none.

Of course the majority of games are friendlies. In a friendly obviously there is no rules about STE replacemments, and the RFU Regualtion is that in a friendly you can have unlimited replacements and interchanges, and you will often see a lot of coming and going, depending on nature of the game. Sometimes you might see the weaker squad members starting and the stronger ones being left as subs (balancing the league games)

 

[RobLev]

In our league teams are limited to seven subs, but there is no requirement that any of them are STE.
http://images.leaguerepublic.com/data/documents/616512907-league_rules_201415.pdf

Most clubs play league games with fewer than seven subs - many don't have that many players, also there is a feeling that if you bring young kids out for a game, then you really should give them some time on the field, and for a league game to give meaninful game time to all seven subs would mean weakening the team unnecessarily. Better to play with three or four subs, and plan for everyone to play at least one half (interchanges are unlimited)

Most of the time you will find one or more STE subs, but not always. It's often one. Sometimes 2, sometimes none.

Of course the majority of games are friendlies. In a friendly obviously there is no rules about STE replacemments, and the RFU Regualtion is that in a friendly you can have unlimited replacements and interchanges, and you will often see a lot of coming and going, depending on nature of the game. Sometimes you might see the weaker squad members starting and the stronger ones being left as subs (balancing the league games)

I see the problem; but does Law 3.5(a) not apply given that the league rules are silent? If so, then 1 or 2 (depending on whether it's 3 or 4 subs) STE replacements are required. If they did have 7 subs nominated, then that would be 3 STE (U19 variation).

How does the U19 variation 20.1(e) affect the position?

 

[crossref]

I see the problem; but does Law 3.5(a) not apply given that the league rules are silent? If so, then 1 or 2 (depending on whether it's 3 or 4 subs) STE replacements are required. If they did have 7 subs nominated, then that would be 3 STE (U19 variation).

How does the U19 variation 20.1(e) affect the position?

Yes, the Laws must apply, so the teams *should* have STE subs -- but there is no penalty written into the league rules for failing to have enough STE subs, and no man-off when you go (or even if you start) uncontested. So the Law has no sanction and no bite.

At the moment this isn't seen as a problem
- coaches do genuiunely try and have enough STE players to have STE replacement
- while we do see more uncontested scrums that adult leagues, we don't (well, I don't think we do anyway) have a problem of contrived uncontested scrums.

 

[RobLev]

Yes, the Laws must apply, so the teams *should* have STE subs -- but there is no penalty written into the league rules for failing to have enough STE subs, and no man-off when you go (or even if you start) uncontested. So the Law has no sanction and no bite.

At the moment this isn't seen as a problem
- coaches do genuiunely try and have enough STE players to have STE replacement
- while we do see more uncontested scrums that adult leagues, we don't (well, I don't think we do anyway) have a problem of contrived uncontested scrums.

More later; but doesn't uncontested when you start mean a four-try forfeiture?

 

[OB..]

More later; but doesn't uncontested when you start mean a four-try forfeiture?

That depends entirely on the competition rules, which differ from place to place..

 

[crossref]

More later; but doesn't uncontested when you start mean a four-try forfeiture?

Not in the Herts-Middx Youth Leagues ...

In the Surrey youth leagues
- there is a 1 league point deduction for starting uncontested
- there is no manoff
- they do say how many STE replacements they expect, but there is no sanction that I can find for not having enough STE replacements (the league, it says, will investigate)
http://www.surreyrugby.com/resource/data/surrey1/docs/Rules for Junior Leagues 2014 1.docx

Other youth leagues no doubt differ. I'd be surprised if anyone forfeits a game as it's better to always play, isn't it?
I quite like the loss of one league point, that seems like an appropriate sanction to me.

Also don't forget that here in UK many youth games are 'friendlies' and not part of any competition at all.

 

[RobLev]

Not in the Herts-Middx Youth Leagues ...

In the Surrey youth leagues
- there is a 1 league point deduction for starting uncontested
- there is no manoff
- they do say how many STE replacements they expect, but there is no sanction that I can find for not having enough STE replacements (the league, it says, will investigate)
http://www.surreyrugby.com/resource/data/surrey1/docs/Rules for Junior Leagues 2014 1.docx

Other youth leagues no doubt differ. I'd be surprised if anyone forfeits a game as it's better to always play, isn't it?
I quite like the loss of one league point, that seems like an appropriate sanction to me.

Also don't forget that here in UK many youth games are 'friendlies' and not part of any competition at all.

Isn't the problem you have not with the rules about using STE FR if available even if scrums are uncontested, but with wholesale disregard of the Laws and regulations about availabilty of STE FR substitutes? You say in your earlier post that you believe that "coaches do genuinely try and have enough STE players to have STE replacement"; but if it was put to them that "Do... or do not. There is no try", might the subject get a little more priority, with the result that STE FR players would become sufficiently more plentiful that the Laws and Regs about use of STE FR subs might actually mean something? Those "rules" were after all written with the "rules" about availability in mind.