U19 scrum numbers (still confused)

[crossref]

All the U.19 variation does is to stipulate when the scrum MUST be reduced below 8, .

I don't think it does that. It just says what happens in the circs when one team CANNOT supply eight players for the scrum - a situation which never happens as team always CAN supply eight players.. if they wish to. The only players you can run out of are front row [EDIT - Front FIVE].. and then you are going uncontested, so you can STILL safely supply eight players.

 

[OB..]

I don't get involved in mini or youth rugby, but it seems to me that you cannot apply logical deduction to a dog's dinner. There is surely an urgent case for clarification. Even if we could get a consensus on here, the majority of referees would not know about it. Shouldn't the Ref's CB be demanding an answer?

 

[Dixie]

A real shame that the U.19 Rugby World Cup was repalced in 2008 by the U.20 Junor World Championship. It was an ideal tester of the U.19 laws.

 

[crossref]

here's my recipe for 'managing it'

1 at the time of the YC, regardless of who is carded, say nothing.

2 at the first scrum see how many players present themselves. If it is eight, fine, if it is seven then match numbers/check formation

3 if they play eight in the scrum, then we have established that they do have eight players ready to pack down, so they can't then subsequently switch to seven (unless of course there is an injury.. if so back to step 2)

4 - if at step 2 they start with seven in a scrum, that's fine. If then at a subsequent scrum eight players present themselves to pack down.. that's also fine... but now back to step 3

5 - at scrum time DON'T allow substutions that seem to be for the sole purpose of adjusting scrum numbers (tricky one this...may get you into difficulties given that there are rolling subs, and there is always more than one reason. Obviously an injured player can always leave)

 

[Dixie]

Do you have any indication that the provisions of Adult 20.1(e) don't apply? Those provisions permit a reduction in the scrum to replace a missing back. They do not require it.

if there is no such indication, then it seems perfectly permissible for the team to juggle their numbers scrum by scrum at their whim.

 

[crossref]

fair point
the U19 regulations refer to when a team 'cannot' field eight -- which might mean that if they have shown they CAN then they should. Perhaps they don't need to.

 

[Taff]

... the U19 regulations refer to when a team 'cannot' field eight -- which might mean that if they have shown they CAN then they should.

I think a lot of the confusion stems from the iRB referring to "teams" when they actually mean "packs" of forwards. :chin:

 

[The umpire]

Can't really be doing with all this possible confusion. In my games it's quite straightforward (although I accept that it may not be 100%(correct):-

If one pack goes down to seven then the other goes to seven and that's the way it stays unless the missing 8th player permanently returns/replaced (from injury TLC, YC or whatever). If the pack that's short want to bring a back in to fill in, then that's fine, but no-one is going to make them if they don't want to.
End of.

 

[Deeps]

To discuss Dixie's point, 20.1 (e) does occur in U19 rugby where for example you might play 10's or some other similar arrangement due to a shortfall of players. The difference is that this is usually agreed before the start of the game and stays that way throughout.

Now it would appear, through a well meaning though poorly conceived rewrite, that Law does not preclude numbers in the scrum from being varied scrum by scrum at the whim of the team with reduced numbers.

Clarification is of course necessary however, in the interim, I think that it would be wise to remain with the intent of the revision and only reduce and balance scrum numbers when a scrum player from the opposing team has left the field.

 

[crossref]

it's not clear to me what the intention of the revision is.

eg I YC a flanker, and a centre moves up to the pack.... what's the intention of the Law?
eg I YC a centre and flanker drops back ... what's the intention of the Law?

who knows?
I don't think they even considered those (commonplace) scenarios

 

[PaulDG]

it's not clear to me what the intention of the revision is.

eg I YC a flanker, and a centre moves up to the pack.... what's the intention of the Law?
eg I YC a centre and flanker drops back ... what's the intention of the Law?

who knows?
I don't think they even considered those (commonplace) scenarios

Again, I'm with crossref here.

The Law doesn't support us telling the kids how many players have to be put into the scrum.

So how can it be for us to decide, "well, that's what they must have intended"? If they'd intended it, wouldn't they have either made it clear in the ruling or in the rewrite?

 

[didds]

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.

The laws do not give you that leeway?

What are you fgoing to do if you follow this unilateral line and the team with 14 say "we have nobody that feels safe going in the scrum".

Are you now going to pack 8v 7 in complete disregard for the laws and regs that apply? (and in so doing potentially remove all and any insurances covering you and the players etc?).

Award PKs against the team with 14 because no 15 year old feels safe packing down?

MAKE a child that do something they feel extremely uncomfortable with? that's abuse !

I have plenty of issues with the u19 regs in this area, and would agree the IRB etc need to rethink how it all works. But the bottom line is you cannot do what you are proposing.

didds

 

[didds]

...........

 

[didds]

So - no if you have a forward available you must use him. Only if you have none can you sub a forward with a back... an if that was a tactical rather than injury change I suspect it should not be allowed even then.

but now you are entering the territory of what constitutes tactical. As opposed to rolling subs at youth levels designed to give maximum opportunities to play.

didds

 

[didds]

If they do have 8 STE forwards then they MUST pack down 8 at the scrum - standard Law 20.1.e the U19 variation is to the exception.

Read the laws as a whole, don't just pick and mix.

WADR dave I think its you that is now picking and mixing.

laws say 8 should scrummage - yes. That requires 8 on the pitch. If howsoever it happens there are just 7 on the pitch, then they pack with 7. Who is standing on the sidelines is immaterial - they are not at that moment "on the pitch".

Rolling subs are part of the same set of laws. Teams can use rolling subs as allowed.

As is normally said, you are there to control the laws, not the morals and ethics. that what league/competition committees are for. And if its a friendly the coaches can have a fight over it!

As an analogy with seniors even with comp requirements for 2 or 3 or whatever STE FRs, if teams turn up to their league game or cup game and cannot or will not comply, it doesn't mean as a ref you wouldn't "play" the match. You'd just leave it up to the committees to sort out what the result of said match is. And in a freindly there;s no compunction on anyone to turn up with STE FRs at all! All you need do is blow by the laws, which means non-contested scrums if necessary. and the analogy at youth is a 7 man scrum, packed 3-4.

didds

 

[didds]

Just like a sub in the adult game - you could not take off a FR player and replace him with a centre if you had any FR players available.

why not?

in a comp game, you may have the discussion with the coach, but if that was the situation let the comp committee sort it out. Blow what you have.

In a friendly have the discussion, then blow what you have, and let the coaches/clubs sort out any disagreements.

didds (I'm not saying its ethically right, but I can envisage scenarios whereby tactically it could occur)

 

[crossref]

The laws do not give you that leeway?

yes I take that back - about the team with 15 should be in control. it doesn't work. basically the team with 14 is in control and can move a player back and forth at will...

the only thing I think I wouild be inclined to try and prevent is scrum-time substituions on/off the field to bring on/off forwards/backs.

but a player moving between flanker and winger at different scrums, I think they are free to do it.

 

[didds]

The thing to remember is that however the scrum is set up, the side with more players will have a built-in overlap in the backs. With scrums limited to 1.5m shove, it makes not a lot of difference how the scrum is set up in terms of ball won.

It makes a difference in how the ball is controlled though, although i appreciate this was not the crux of your argument

didds

 

[didds]

really the subs are a red herring.. simplify it even more

YC to a back row player
- a centre (let's say STE if that matters) moves to back row to maintain 8 in scrum.. allow/disallow?

YC a winger
- a flanker moves to wing leaving 7 in scrum .. allow/disallow ?

I would allow both.
If they wanted chop/change each scrum.. I would have a problem. I don't think that SHOULD be allowed.. but nothing in the Law to stop them.

Well, presumably you al;lowed the above on tactical grounds.

But tactics are different in defence and attack. Or even in field position. In my own 22, scrummage our put-in, I'd like a full back row - a no. 8 to control the ball for starters so it doesn;t squirt out all over the place, and maybe also to run a 8 pick up to draw the oppo back row to maybe give the 10/15 more time on any subsequent clearance kick. On their put in I might prefer no #8 (with 1.5m max shove no danger of push over) and to equalise the backline. Or our scrummage on the centre spot I might prefer no number 8 (and risk the ball squirt) and a full backline to provide a split-field attack.

So now you are allowing one area of tactical choice (where the flanker plays) and not another (where he plays at what juncture).

The laws don;t give you that granularity.
didds

 

[crossref]

But this doesn't help. The thing to remember is that however the scrum is set up, the side with more players will have a built-in overlap in the backs. With scrums limited to 1.5m shove, it makes not a lot of difference how the scrum is set up in terms of ball won. It is preferable however for both sides to go with 8 rather than 7 due to the additional control available at the base. The side with more players would rather not crowd the outside by adding a sluggish back-rower to a full complement of backs - they'd rather have a full set of backs against one fewer back (which seems rather harsh when it's a forward who is off, and fthe law variations quite deliberately limit the impact of forward power to facilitate a more open game). .

my thinking is different:

For if you are the team with 14 then

- on defensive scrums you prefer 7 in the scrum: no pick-up from base of scrum (one fewer option to defend against) and less space out wide. Rather defend with six against seven than five against six

- on attacking scrums you prefer eight: gives you the option of a pick up (which is attractive anyway, one fewer back means you are less keen to spin it out wide - but if you you do pass it out again fewer players means more space which is better when you are a man short.