Test match - FR numbers and outcomes

[didds]

I thought Id sorted this in my head but clearly not.

In yesterday's Ireland v Aus game, Australia has.,..

* #2 off fro HIA/concussion
* # 16 then later got YCd.

So at the enxt scrum Aus brought on IIRC #18 - a trained FR but not hooker. The commentators at that juncture suggested this was so they wouldn't lose another player through man off regs and uncontested scrums.
However, it did become uncontested scrums, and Aus did lose a further player to man-off. So were down to 13.

Now that as I understood it FWTW - not a FTE hooker, so uncontested. Thus man off.

But that all said and done - why did Aus bring on a FR to do that? Why nor bring on eg a back row/centre off the bench to play hooker in the uncontested scrums, and benefit frankly from the extra speed etc etc that player would bring?
The one reason i can think of is that that #18 could throw at lineouts, but I didn't notice who threw in (if there was even a chance for that to happen).
So generalising and throwing aside is there anything specific that means it HAD to be a FR come on for the YCd #16 even though it wold still lead to uncontested scrums and man off?

 

[RedCapRef]

I understand it to be that if you have a front row player available they must be on the pitch. It is to stop that very scenario of bringing a flanker on instead of a hooker to get the advantage (limit the disadvantage might be more accurate) Law 3.18 I think covers it.

 

[Mipper]

I understand it to be that if you have a front row player available they must be on the pitch. It is to stop that very scenario of bringing a flanker on instead of a hooker to get the advantage (limit the disadvantage might be more accurate) Law 3.18 I think covers it.

Absolutely correct, it is detailed in the WR guidelines under uncontested scrums.

I‘m not clever enough to link it but it says something like “remaining FR replacements must be used”

 

[didds]

thanks both for clarifying that.

 

[Phil E]

As stated above even if uncontested, you have to have FR in the front row if available.

i.e. you can't take all the fat boys off and have three whippets on the pitch to give you a better chance in open/back play.

 

[crossref]

it's an odd law with no man-off - the team that caused uncontested only has 2 front row, so has brought on a whippet, while the team that is complete still has 3 front row on, and cant' take them off.

 

[didds]

it's an odd law with no man-off - the team that caused uncontested only has 2 front row, so has brought on a whippet, while the team that is complete still has 3 front row on, and cant' take them off.

and that is the perfect reasoning to the other excellent answers

 

[crossref]

Earlier this season, with uncontested scrums, a team was annoyed that I wouldn't let them change formation (they wanted one of their young and mobile props to switch to back row)

(No one had any subs left, this was just about how the scrum formed up)

 

[didds]

And the replacement for him in the FR wasnt STE ?

 

[crossref]

And the replacement for him in the FR wasnt STE ?

This team was complete with 3xSTE and five other forwards. No subs left
They wanted to put one of the props in the back row, and move someone else to the front

They were somewhat miffed as the other team, with 2 STE and six others, had a non STE in front row, which I wouldn't allow them to do

 

[didds]

This team was complete with 3xSTE and five other forwards. No subs left
They wanted to put one of the props in the back row, and move someone else to the front

They were somewhat miffed as the other team, with 2 STE and six others, had a non STE in front row, which I wouldn't allow them to do

i meant, none of the other 5 forwards was STE ?

Cos if one (or more!) were then I see no issue with swapping the STE around personally.

 

[didds]

mind you - it sdpeaks volumes of their back row if they have a more mobile prop than the back rower!

 

[crossref]

mind you - it sdpeaks volumes of their back row if they have a more mobile prop than the back rower!

Yes, I am not convinced he was their normal prop, I developed a suspicion that he was normally a back row, who 'sometimes' plays prop....(he was their starting prop for this game )

i meant, none of the other 5 forwards was STE ?

correct

 

[Stu10]

it's an odd law with no man-off - the team that caused uncontested only has 2 front row, so has brought on a whippet, while the team that is complete still has 3 front row on, and cant' take them off.

At Elite level isn't this countered by the requirement to remove an additional player? However, I believe this does not apply at grass roots.

 

[crossref]

At Elite level isn't this countered by the requirement to remove an additional player? However, I believe this does not apply at grass roots.

even at elite level no man off if the last player went off becasue of HIA, blood, foul play etc . So the team missing the prop now has 2 front row and 4 back row, while the team with the prop has three of each