[Law] Teams benefiting from YCs

[ChuckieB]

20.1

(e) Number of players: eight. A scrum must have eight players from each team. All eight players must stay bound to the scrum until it ends. Each front row must have three players in it, no more and no less. Two locks must form the second row.
Sanction: Penalty kick


Exception: When a team is reduced to fewer than fifteen for any reason, then the number of players of each team in the scrum may be similarly reduced. Where a permitted reduction is made by one team, there is no requirement for the other team to make a similar reduction. However, a team must not have fewer than five players in the scrum.
Sanction: Penalty kick

My understanding is that if a team is one player down *any* of the teams can reduce to 7 players in the scrum. In case of a second yellow card to the same team (no matter if FR or not), any of them can go down to 6. If the second YC causes uncontested scrums the attacking team could go down to 6 players in the scrum no matter what the others do. The defending team would most likely reduce to 6 as well but they would still face a 8 vs 6 in the remaining players (not considering scrum halves). It still looks like a decent advantage to me...

When it comes in for uncontested, the requirement for an 8 leaves the non offending side no worse off than before but certainly forces the offending side to make up the numbers in the scrum that they are not permitted to win thereby restricting their defensive line capability.

I can see certainly see a logic here and the non offending team doesn't get a more significant advantage with a #8 pick and go play option

Binding in uncontested scrum situations. How well policed by referees?

 

[DocY]

Binding in uncontested scrum situations. How well policed by referees?

For the back row, pretty well - incorrect binding by them is far more prevalent than in contested scrums.

For the front and second rows it's largely ignored. For them, it's much less of an issue than in contested scrums.

 

[ChuckieB]

For the back row, pretty well - incorrect binding by them is far more prevalent than in contested scrums.

For the front and second rows it's largely ignored. For them, it's much less of an issue than in contested scrums.

Cheers. Makes sense to prioritise to where the break is going to come from!

 

[MadRef77]

When it comes in for uncontested, the requirement for an 8 leaves the non offending side no worse off than before but certainly forces the offending side to make up the numbers in the scrum that they are not permitted to win thereby restricting their defensive line capability.

I can see certainly see a logic here and the non offending team doesn't get a more significant advantage with a #8 pick and go play option

Binding in uncontested scrum situations. How well policed by referees?

I don't really see a need for forcing 8-men scrums when uncontested due to card(s) as it only worsens an already complex issue.
As I said the non-offending team can equal the numbers in the scrum at will and always keep an advantage in the backs. I agree that 6 vs 7 in the backs is better for the defence than 5 vs 6 but to achieve this the defending team has to give up a flanker and are less well prepared to defend the nr-8-pick-and-go-offload-to-SH-whatever. At any rate the offending team is 1 or more players down and it will result in a weakness somewhere in their defence.

 

[ChuckieB]

I don't really see a need for forcing 8-men scrums when uncontested due to card(s) as it only worsens an already complex issue.
As I said the non-offending team can equal the numbers in the scrum at will and always keep an advantage in the backs. I agree that 6 vs 7 in the backs is better for the defence than 5 vs 6 but to achieve this the defending team has to give up a flanker and are less well prepared to defend the nr-8-pick-and-go-offload-to-SH-whatever. At any rate the offending team is 1 or more players down and it will result in a weakness somewhere in their defence.

I just see the requirement to maintain an 8 in an uncontested situation as just stake in the ground and one that does not rock the status quo in, as you say, an already complex situation. Scrums are made up of 8 players. At the extreme, why play an uncontested scrum at all in that instance? Make up some other form of restart perhaps? I think not.

I am not looking for it to be anything more than it needs to by introducing some new decision point that isn't normally there, e.g. the non offending team thinking about, do we play 8, do we play seven etc., knowing they are required to match. It's another thing that could just hinder the speed of the game while they decide. And we know how lineouts have slowed things by irritating slow formation behaviour on the part of the team with throw in.

 

[MadRef77]

I just see the requirement to maintain an 8 in an uncontested situation as just stake in the ground and one that does not rock the status quo in, as you say, an already complex situation. Scrums are made up of 8 players. At the extreme, why play an uncontested scrum at all in that instance? Make up some other form of restart perhaps? I think not.

I am not looking for it to be anything more than it needs to by introducing some new decision point that isn't normally there, e.g. the non offending team thinking about, do we play 8, do we play seven etc., knowing they are required to match. It's another thing that could just hinder the speed of the game while they decide. And we know how lineouts have slowed things by irritating slow formation behaviour on the part of the team with throw in.

We may well impose 8 men scrum at any time no matter what then and possibly 8 men lineouts too. The reason it doesn't work is that you may have as few as 12 players a side (not very infrequent at grass root where teams struggle to gather enough players) and compulsory all-forwards plus SH restarts with just three backs behind would look very weird and cut-off a lot of playing options. I personally don't deem it practical.

 

[DocY]

ChuckieB does have a point about slowing the game down when there aren't 8 in the scrum, but this is only an issue at U19s when the 'full' pack doesn't realise what's going on and I don't think it's any reason to insist on 8 players in each scrum - that'll likely cause more problems than it solves.

It's a refereeing challenge, but it's certainly not insurmountable particularly when you have mandatory configurations - a quick shout of "8, go and join the backs" is all it takes. If they do start messing about the threat of conceding a free kick hurries them up.

 

[thepercy]

If we insist on 8 in a scrum, you end up with things like this.

 

[ChuckieB]

We may well impose 8 men scrum at any time no matter what then and possibly 8 men lineouts too. The reason it doesn't work is that you may have as few as 12 players a side (not very infrequent at grass root where teams struggle to gather enough players) and compulsory all-forwards plus SH restarts with just three backs behind would look very weird and cut-off a lot of playing options. I personally don't deem it practical.

Yes I see where there are practical considerations but my immediate thought is to punt it back, that it will have been dealt with before the start with the various mandatory configurations known and then acting as the reference for that game. No chopping and changing thereafter.

 

[Pegleg]

I believe the idea is to free up space in the backs to play rugby. The resultant scrums are uncontested (under the relevant trial) so there is no mess in the scrum, just a restart with more space behind to run in tries.

 

[ChuckieB]

I believe the idea is to free up space in the backs to play rugby. The resultant scrums are uncontested (under the relevant trial) so there is no mess in the scrum, just a restart with more space behind to run in tries.

Setting aside the uncontested element for a moment, when will those with all these ideologies realise scrums are an integral part of the contest!!!!! As an ex-front row I am biased but at least I can feel qualified to say they must all be backs!


Nobody likes a boring arm wrestle contest but you can bet they at least enjoy it when someone wins. The twenty minutes of "mind game chess and jousting" on Saturday was about as good as it got in that game, IMHO.

 

[Pegleg]

I'm former LH and for me those 20 minutes were total nonsense and nothing to do with rugby union. A simple farce. A genuine scrum battle is one thing that was tosh.

 

[VM75]

I'm former LH and for me those 20 minutes were total nonsense and nothing to do with rugby union. A simple farce. A genuine scrum battle is one thing that was tosh.

You don't need to be a former FrontRower to realise the reason that the last 20 mins were such nonsense is that Wales realised that they could give away PK after PK without suffering any escalated sanctioning for their multitude of similar offences

I suspect it's because Elite ref's are actually fearful of the backlash that the press/pundits/media/socialmedia/forums! etc would send their way if they repeatedly sanctioned under 10.3. to make it say 15 v 13/12/11[?]

At my Level, a team who repeatedly offended as Wales did in the last moments of a game would expect to find themselves short of a number of offenders, which would likely bring about a score earlier than we saw on Sat. 10.3. exists to prevent such suppressive play.

WB has been through the worst post decision criticism/abuse experience ever with NZvFR, so i'm not surprised he sidestepped this ambush so skilfully. :clap:

 

[Pegleg]

I don't think I claimed you needed to be. The point is whether your are a former FR or FB the end of the game did nothing for the image of Union.

 

[OB..]

I don't think I claimed you needed to be. The point is whether your are a former FR or FB the end of the game did nothing for the image of Union.

Unfortunately for many it was the most exciting part of the match.

France deserve great credit for managing to avoid giving away any penalties.

 

[ChuckieB]

Unfortunately for many it was the most exciting part of the match.

France deserve great credit for managing to avoid giving away any penalties.

So I am not alone then. That's a relief! But yes unfortunate, as you say.

 

[Pegleg]

Unfortunately for many it was the most exciting part of the match.

France deserve great credit for managing to avoid giving away any penalties.

Short term excitment maybe.