U19 scrum numbers (still confused)

[JohnP]

U16 game our no 8 gets yellow carded, at scrum time we chose not to put a back in to the scrum, so scrummage 7 vs 8. I had thought we were within our rights not to put a back in and that the ref should have reduced the scrums to 7 vs 7.
Correct or not?

 

[ckuxmann]

You're correct that the scrums have to match a back does not have to be put in.

 

[Iron_Lung]

Is there a law that actually states that the infringing team has the choice as to numbers in the scrum with a forward off the field? Even in the U19 variation? I haven't been able to locate one...

I'm more inclined to offer the choice to the non-infringing team depending on what type of game they would like to play. Why should we disadvantage the team who hasn't done anything wrong?

 

[Taff]

At U19 not only do scrum numbers have to be equal, but there is a set format for the scrum shape eg if it's 7 v 7 then there are no No 8s, if it's 6 v 6, then you have to keep the No 8 but drop both Flankers etc etc.

 

[crossref]

U19 Laws do not sepecify which team determines whether there are 7 or 8 in the scrum. The Laws only specify that that the numbers are even, and the formation.

in practice it usually seems to be the team with 14 are given the call.

But I think the team with 15 players should be in control and that's how I plan to ref it next time it comes up.

 

[ckuxmann]

Only problem I see with giving the other team(15 players) the choice is that the backs may not be properly trained. This could carry serious implications if a player was to get hurt.

 

[TheBFG]

U19 Laws do not sepecify which team determines whether there are 7 or 8 in the scrum. The Laws only specify that that the numbers are even, and the formation.

in practice it usually seems to be the team with 14 are given the call.

But I think the team with 15 players should be in control and that's how I plan to ref it next time it comes up.

DON'T go there, you're making a major rod for your back:nono:

YOU decide that an un trained player goes into the pack, even at 6/7 injuries happen and that player gets injured, YOU will have a lot of explaining to do!

 

[Deeps]

U19 Laws do not sepecify which team determines whether there are 7 or 8 in the scrum. The Laws only specify that that the numbers are even, and the formation.

in practice it usually seems to be the team with 14 are given the call.

But I think the team with 15 players should be in control and that's how I plan to ref it next time it comes up.

Then you will be incorrect young man. Law requires that if there are less than 8 suitably trained scrum players available in either team then both scrums automatically reduce to the maximum number of suitably trained scrum players available in the most reduced team down to a minimum of 5 players. You, as the referee, cannot force a team to field a non suitably trained player into the scrum whatever the wishes of the other team and would be standing into danger if you did so. :nono:

 

[Davet]

Deeps is correct.

If a team is 1 short in the pack then they field 7 in the scrum, the opposition must match that 7.

If you do anything else then you are wrong.

 

[crossref]

you guys!! obviously if one team has only seven players capable of safely playing in the scrum, then there's only seven in the scrum! That's not the issue here - (it's also very unlikely, with rolling subs and no special training needed to play flanker)

- but, for example, if I YC a centre, I don't see why the team with 14, with all eight forwards still on the pitch should be given the option of playing seven in scrum or eight... the non-offending team should have that call.

 

[Iron_Lung]

Deeps is correct.

If a team is 1 short in the pack then they field 7 in the scrum, the opposition must match that 7.

If you do anything else then you are wrong.

So where is this laid down? As I said there is nothing I have found that says who determines the number of players that are to be in a scrum post YC.

Out here in Aus (from what I remember), doing the Smart Rugby course (foundation equivalent I think??) lets you play rugby in any position other than the front row. There is no specific training required (under law) before someone can play in the 2nd or back rows. Now if I person, at any level, was uncomfortable playing in the scrum then you'd have to consider the safety implications (especially at low levels), but where do you draw the line at safety vs gamesmanship? Especially if the team with 15 has a better backline?

I'm not suggesting that you're wrong Deeps (or Davet for the matter), I'm just yet to find a law or local ruling that tells me which way to go. In the absence of the rule of law or someone protesting that they have no one trained to join the scrum, then I'll err on the side of following the non-infringing team's wishes... before I change my mind I want to know where all this is laid down?

 

[crossref]

... before I change my mind I want to know where all this is laid down?

it's not laid down... which is why this topic comes up quite regularly.

 

[Iron_Lung]

it's not laid down... which is why this topic comes up quite regularly.

Now you're just being difficult... :biggrin:

 

[Davet]

So where is this laid down? As I said there is nothing I have found that says who determines the number of players that are to be in a scrum post YC.

U19 variations 20.1.f

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.​

Suitable training is NOT for you to assume, it is for the team to tell you - they know who they feel is capable and who is not, you don't, and and should not guess.​

If they are a man down in the pack then both teams must reduce to 7, packing 3 4 formation ie missing #8.

but, for example, if I YC a centre, I don't see why the team with 14, with all eight forwards still on the pitch should be given the option of playing seven in scrum or eight... the non-offending team should have that call.​

​

​

If you YC a centre that has no effect on the numbers in the scrum, they can still filed 8 suitablly trained players there.​

They stay at 8 and the non-offending side stay at 8 - scrums are unchanged. The offenders do not get the option of pulling a player out of the scrum, nor do their opponents.​

​

 

[crossref]

They stay at 8 and the non-offending side stay at 8 - scrums are unchanged. The offenders do not get the option of pulling a player out of the scrum, nor do their opponents.[/LEFT]
[/LEFT]

so would you let them replace their #8 with a centre and then pack down with seven, because they now only had seven forwards?

if so, you are giving them the option.

if you YC a 2nd row, would you let them take off a winger and bring on a new second row, and have eight in the scrum... if so you are giving them the option to determine the numbers.

 

[Iron_Lung]

Ok, I'm still a little fuzzy on what constitutes someone suitably trained to play in the scrum, particularly as I don't remember much training being given to me as a No. 7...

However, noting that the law appears to err on the side of caution, would appear that we should all follow the lead and take a cautious approach... especially given that we're talking about kids here.

Noted and filed Davet, thanks for that one. :clap:

 

[crossref]

but Iron Lung - there are rolling subs allowed so safety doesn't come into it

if you allow it the team with 14 can bring on / take off a forward at will, so can control the numbers in the scrum.

 

[Iron_Lung]

I don't think that Davet or I were suggesting that there weren't ways to manage the situation. If they have someone who is trained to play in the scrum then I would still then suggest that it is up to th non-infringing team to decide the numbers and format of the scrum.

However, first of all if they infringing team doesn't have a trained replacement on the field, then for safety reasons you can't force them to match numbers.

In terms of substituting a player due to the first being given a YC, Law 3.13 doesn't mention anything about players other than front row players, therefore you don't really have the option of requesting substiutions to provide a suitably trained 2nd or back rower, or at least as far as I can tell. Having 7 in the scrum is not a reason to go uncontested unless it's a front rower, in which case the law gives us the mandate to request a replacement. However it says nothing about any other position... again, I'd suggest that without a mandate you can't force it upon the coach...

If they request uncontested scrums due to the lack of a trained 2nd rower on the field due to YC, I can't see any option to force them to provide a replacement via temp sub, but I'm sure you could ask nicely?

This seems to be turning into a management question... both safety and game...

 

[Davet]

so would you let them replace their #8 with a centre and then pack down with seven, because they now only had seven forwards?

NO.

They must field suitably trained forwards if they are available.

if you YC a 2nd row, would you let them take off a winger and bring on a new second row, and have eight in the scrum... if so you are giving them the option to determine the numbers

Rolling subs would seem to allow this - they do still have 8 STE forwards.

I dob't care who controls the options - my role is not to let my personal feelings about what I as an individual think is fair get in the way of the game. My riole is simply to enforce the laws - I don't care if that means the offending team can exercise a degree of control about scrum numbers.

If you care then you should not let it affect your refereeing.

 

[Taff]

... I'm more inclined to offer the choice to the non-infringing team depending on what type of game they would like to play. Why should we disadvantage the team who hasn't done anything wrong?

You're assuming someone has done something wrong.

One team could be 1 down in the pack through injury ie it's nobodys fault.