U19 Scrum formation - Questions

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,804
Post Likes
3,145
I am collecting these now.

Yesterday I was watching a game - U17 league game, society ref but in this game acting in a club-ref capacity: ie appointed by the home club (his club) to the ref the game.

Blue started the game with only 14 players, and had eight in the scrum.
after about 20 minutes a blue forward was injured and had to leave the field. No subs obviously.
some discussion between the referee, the blue captain and blue coach that I couldn't hear.

Referee restarted the game - it was a scrum restart - announcing that blue now had only six forwards. Scrums went to 3:2:1 (still contested). Red coaches made no objection, they preferred six to seven as with six there is still a #8 and therefore still the option to do #8 pick ups. (most likely this was exactly the reason that blue also wanted six)

Both teams were happy. Was the referee wrong?

(if I had been refereeing I would have done the same)
 
Last edited:

Stuartg


Referees in England
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Messages
401
Post Likes
37
I am collecting these now.

Yesterday I was watching a game - U17 league game, society ref but in this game acting in a club-ref capacity: ie appointed by the home club (his club) to the ref the game.

Blue started the game with only 14 players, and had eight in the scrum.
after about 20 minutes a blue forward was injured and had to leave the field. No subs obviously.
some discussion between the referee, the blue captain and blue coach that I couldn't hear.

Referee restarted the game - it was a scrum restart - announcing that blue now had only six forwards. Scrums went to 3:2:1 (still contested). Red coaches made no objection, they preferred six to seven as with six there is still a #8 and therefore still the option to do #8 pick ups. (most likely this was exactly the reason that blue also wanted six)

Both teams were happy. Was the referee wrong?

(if I had been refereeing I would have done the same)

I'm with you too.
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,231
Post Likes
356
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
If both coaches agree then fine. Down two players it's fairer to the short side to have a 6 man scrum. 7 in the scrum leaves 6 defending 8 in the backs. As a coach of U-19 (1.5m drive, no wheel) I'd always chose to play less in the scrum if I was short.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,032
Post Likes
1,775
One thing about the 7 man scrum option though... with no number 8 to controll the hooked ball, it can be a nightmare and it might be a defensive advantage to have messy ball for the opposition especially if the scrumhalf is quick enough to make life miserable for his oppo trying to struggle with messy ball. This is only a potential option above U15 in england of course (U15 and below the scumhalf cannot advance past the tunnel until the ball is picked or passed)

didds
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,804
Post Likes
3,145
it was interesting that in the game on Sunday, whether the team was one short or two short, both times they elected numbers in the scrum to maintain a #8 (eight in, then six in).

it could have been without thinking about it much. my hunch is that the #8 was important to them.

Its probably relevant that they were winning the drive, and the ref was very generous in his 1.5m - the more you can get a drive on, the handier it is to have a #8 to control the ball, and to increase the options. I'd say a coach who was thinking clearly.
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
Add this to your list Crossref, yesterday, U18.

HTime.
Blue have replaced both locks #5 with #20 & #4 has gone out to centres #18 replaced him.

Team warning is in place (repeat ruck handling) and Blue capt is reminded ( in earshot of coach ) that it still exists at start of 2nd half, "please make sure all replacements know" is my instruction. #20 commits a blatent and very late ruck handling offence, so ( in order to give BoDoubt as he's been on pitch c.3 mins) I admonish him, and ensure he's in no doubt of repeat sanction consequence.

3 mins later, Oh no, he makes a tackle the ball is placed ,ruck forms, & from the floor he lurches forward like a goalkeeper and gathers the ball just before the oppo scrum half picks it up! Wtf.

YC duly issued, at next knock on by blue (Red feed ) Blues present themselves to scrum with x7 in 3-4 configuration ready to pack down. Time off. I tell captain that he needs to have 8 in the scrum, teacher shouts on "they have to match us ref - age regs 7v7 & no #8 pick up" ,

I insist 8 ... "ONLY, if you've no STE lock replacement coach"

Coach - We haven't.
Me - "but your #8 has already packed down as a lock, and the original #5 can be interchanged, or #4 can come back in"
Coach - I think 8s not suitable
Me - "8, have you played lock before?"
8 - loads of times sir
Me - that great, coach, player says he's experienced
Me - Captain , your options are: either bring a back into position 8 or bring a forward on as an interchange
Capt - coach bring xx on ( the original #5)
#15 pipes up - I'll do it I've played 8 before
#4 also pipes up - I'll go back in
Me - capt, please decide asap
Capt - our full back will go into 8 sir
Me - excellent, time on, scrum red feed, ..... crouch +...

Post match cuppa & cake i chat to both teachers/coaches....... Interesting
A) never get YC for repeats ( really? Im amazed given their poor actions) - oh no, we just normally see PK after PK ...
B) both agree that non offending team shouldnt lose their no8 attack option
C) both accept that non 'offending team' were better advantaged by 7 v 6 in the backs
D) blue coach said he was more worried about being 6v7 , than being 7 v 8 in the backs (which he'd have wanted if he could get it)

:shrug:

PS...as an aside, I'm told that the "huge #20 is in the academy of a championship club" !

PS...interestingly the coach of the away side ( a retired player from a current championship club ) thought a ruck was "formed if the first supporting player 'parked' over the T&TP or when a third player on feet joined in "
 
Last edited:

Pinky


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,521
Post Likes
192
Browner,I don't think there is anything in law to force a team to put 8 in the scrum when the player off the pitch is a forward. They have to have ste in the front 5 (at U 19) but if a FR was YC, the captain of the team with 14 can choose to lose a back (and pack with 8) or lose a forward (and pack with 7) and the team with 15 will either get to pack with 8 or an extra man out in the backs.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,804
Post Likes
3,145
A lot of stuff in that story not relevant to the scrum formation!

The crux of the matter is that at the moment you YC #20, the lock, there were still eight forwards on the pitch - the other seven in the scrum plus, as it happens, #4 the original lock, still on the pitch playing in the centre.

So they have eight forwards on the pitch, covering all the positions, so I agree with you they need to pack down with eight.

If they were to declare that #4 in fact had an injury and couldn't play in the scrum, then it does start to get complicated...


[LAWS]20.1 Forming a scrum

(e) In an 8 person scrum the formation must be 3-4-1, with the single player (normally the Number 8) shoving on the 2 locks. The locks must pack with their heads on either side of the hooker.

Exception: A team must have fewer than eight players in its scrum when the team cannot field eight suitably trained players in its scrum due to either the team not fielding a complete team, or a forward player being sent off or temporarily suspended for foul play, or a forward player leaving the field because of injury.

Even allowing for this exception, each team must always have at least five players in a scrum.

If a team is incomplete and it cannot field eight suitably trained players in its scrum, the scrum formation must be as follows:

If a team is without one forward player, then both teams must use a 3-4 formation (i.e. no No.8).

If a team is without two forward players, then both teams must use a 3-2-1 formation (i.e. no flankers).

If a team is without three forward players, then both teams must use a 3-2 formation (i.e. only front rows and locks).

When a normal scrum takes place, the players in the three front row positions and the two lock positions must have been suitably trained for these positions.

If a team cannot field such suitably trained players because:

either they are not available, or

a player in one of those five positions is injured or

has been sent off for Foul Play and no suitably trained replacement is available, then the referee must order uncontested scrums.

In an uncontested scrum, the teams do not compete for the ball. The team putting in the ball must win it. Neither team is allowed to push the other team away from the mark.[/LAWS]
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
Browner,I don't think there is anything in law to force a team to put 8 in the scrum when the player off the pitch is a forward. They have to have ste in the front 5 (at U 19) but if a FR was YC, the captain of the team with 14 can choose to lose a back (and pack with 8) or lose a forward (and pack with 7) and the team with 15 will either get to pack with 8 or an extra man out in the backs.

Thanks Pinky, but this subject has various angles to it, much debated on other RR threads, hense my reply to CrossRef.

Positions 6,7,8 are not STE requiring, so any player can play in those positions. Unable to field through lack of alternatives is different from unwilling or through choice.

Ultimately, I believe Law expects 8v8 if 'possible', often it is.
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
The crux of the matter is that at the moment you YC #20, the lock, there were still eight forwards on the pitch - the other seven in the scrum plus, as it happens, #4 the original lock, still on the pitch playing in the centre.

So they have eight forwards on the pitch, covering all the positions, so I agree with you they need to pack down with eight.

If they were to declare that #4 in fact had an injury and couldn't play in the scrum, then it does start to get complicated...

IMO its not the inability to have 8 forwards "on the pitch" crossref, its " cannot field 8". If interchanges can be used to achieve this then they should.
 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,804
Post Likes
3,145
IMO its not the inability to have 8 forwards "on the pitch" crossref, its " cannot field 8". If interchanges can be used to achieve this then they should.

that's where you are on shakier ground as in that case you would NEVER have less than eight in the scrum, because
- if you have 5 STE players, anyone can play in the back row, so they can always make up the numbers
- if you don't have 5 STE players, then the scrum is uncontested, and then any player can play in any position, so again they could always have eight in the scrum.

but that's clearly not the intention of the Law makers, who do envisage 7v7 scrums.

I would have stuck to : eight forwards on the pitch, eight in the scrum. If they had said that #4 was too injured to play lock, then I would have shrugged and gone down to seven. It is, effectively, in the power of the offending team to choose 7 or 8.
 

FlipFlop


Referees in Switzerland
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
3,227
Post Likes
226
If they were to declare that #4 in fact had an injury and couldn't play in the scrum, then it does start to get complicated...

Not really - just ask what specific injury he has that prevents a pushing contest in a scrum, but allows him to ruck and tackle safely? Basically any injury that prevents a player playing lock (or back row), means they should be off the field, as the action is not so different to rucking/mauling/tackling.......
Of course - if they immediately come up with an injury that could explain it - then great. But much more likely - he can either play in the forwards or he is off the park with an injury!
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,804
Post Likes
3,145
Not really - just ask what specific injury he has that prevents a pushing contest in a scrum, but allows him to ruck and tackle safely? Basically any injury that prevents a player playing lock (or back row), means they should be off the field, as the action is not so different to rucking/mauling/tackling.......
Of course - if they immediately come up with an injury that could explain it - then great. But much more likely - he can either play in the forwards or he is off the park with an injury!

yes, it goes without saying that this 'injury' might end up with him leaving the pitch, but that doesn't make any difference, he'd be replaced with a back and then there are seven in the scrum, which is what they want to achieve.

which is my point : effectively the way the Law is written the offending team DO get a choice.
- I wouldn't attempt to force the anyone to play in a contested scrum, in any position, if they didn't want to (any more than I'd force them to play rugby if they didn't want to)
- In terms of forcing specific players to come on as replacements , I don't think the Law is on your side.
 
Last edited:

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
U19 variation 20.1.(e)

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]If a team is incomplete and it cannot field eight suitably trained players in its scrum,

[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]It then goes on to say .......[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]
[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]
the players in the three front row positions and the two lock positions must have been suitably trained for these positions.[/FONT]

So,

Adult Rugby STE = positions 1,2,3

U19 STE = positions 1,2,3,4,5 or positions 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 ???? ?:confused:
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,804
Post Likes
3,145
I think that's a red herring. Arguably in youth rugby every single player must have sutiable training for the level and type of match they are about to play - it's a duty of care. Eg it migh be negligent to put any player on the field in a contaxtr game who hadn't first had experience of tackling and being tackled in training.

what's important is that if any player said they didn't feel safe in the scrum (or indeed on the pitch) you wouldn't 'force' them to play (how could you anyway?)
 

FlipFlop


Referees in Switzerland
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
3,227
Post Likes
226
yes, it goes without saying that this 'injury' might end up with him leaving the pitch, but that doesn't make any difference, he'd be replaced with a back and then there are seven in the scrum, which is what they want to achieve.

Yes, but they clearly thought he was better in that position than the player who would now be replacing him. So they lose on that. A team can always engineer the situation they want, the question is: Is it worth it? If they get it for nothing, then yes, if they have to give something up (like replace the "injured" player), then maybe not.
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
Interchanges should be used to keep a scrum 8v8 safely, if at all possible, to do otherwise makes a mockery of the STE replacement on the touchline.

In my game, All Blue (incl coach) were happy for #8 to pack into the lock position vacated by the YCing so logically #8 must have been STE to do so, so why on earth are we then reducing the scrum to 7v7 instead of using an interchange to retain it as 8v8 , it can't be on safety grounds IF interchangable STEs are available, that just doesn't make common sense.

IF #8 had said we wasn't STE (as a lock- really?! ) then it could have been uncontesteds ( ignoring #4 in the centre for the moment) and that can't be the desired outcome if a Blue replacements bench full of STE's are stood available to play [ notwithstanding that some of them might already have participated earlier in the match and be part of a interchange share match plan]
 

tim White


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
1,996
Post Likes
254
so why on earth are we then reducing the scrum to 7v7 instead of using an interchange to retain it as 8v8 ,

It keeps the scrum equal for safety reasons but if gives an deliberate extra man advantage in the backs to the non-offending team -even a number 8 can play in the backs, Shirley?
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
It keeps the scrum equal for safety reasons but if gives an deliberate extra man advantage in the backs to the non-offending team -even a number 8 can play in the backs, Shirley?

It will Tim, but 7v6 in the backs is a better spatial exploitation missmatch than 8v7 ,

Backs defenders ( on a 65m wide pitch) each have c.10m to defend under my method, rather than c8.5m under yours, that means the non offending team get better opportunity to profit from my set up, which seems a fairer sanction consequence.

Roger?
 
Last edited:
Top