U19 scrum numbers (still confused)

[Dixie]

If they'd intended it, wouldn't they have either made it clear in the ruling or in the rewrite?

Bwwahhahahahahahah! Fantastic! You should be on the stage with that sort of comedy material. :biggrin:

laws say 8 should scrummage - yes. That requires 8 on the pitch.

You're being selective. laws say 8 should scrummage, UNLESS there are fewer than 15 on the pitch, in which case you are at liberty to drop a scrummager to the backs. I see nothing in the U.19 variations that varies this basic tenet. Indeed, it used to be an absolute REQUIREMENT, until the inflexibility of that requirement was removed by a knee-jerk ruling. But I see nothing that demands that the inflexibility one way was replaced by inflexibility the other way - and as that inflexibility would contravene adult law, it would have to be specifically stated as a variation in order to override adult law. It isn't, so it doesn't.

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.

Fair point, and tactically sound. Also, IMO, legal under the LoTG as varied for U.19 players.

 

[TheBFG]

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.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

happy with this approach.

When i'm in the middle i'd try not to cause a problem by discussing all outcomes with coaches and capts.

If a side goes to 14 due to YC and the player off is a fwd then we go 7 v 7 for all scrums during the 10 min bin, however If the YC is a fwd and the team down to 14 choose to bring a back in, it's their choice and i'd only allow him to play in the backrow, anywhere else would be at the say so of the coach, but if after any scrum i didn't think he was up to it i'd send him to the backs and we'd be at 7 v 7.

AND if they bring a back into the fwds for the scrum he is there for ALL scrums during the 10 min bin.

If it's a back we stay at 8 v 8, no questions!

If they don't like it, we can discuss in the bar/staff room afterwards:wink:

 

[didds]

- 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.

But the laws and regs don;t support that (although i agree maybe they should but as already said this whole area needs properly adressing from scratch).

Safety- Rnjoyment - laws doesn;t help here either.

50% of thsoe involved will be enjoying the situation probably, so its even stevens...


cheers

didds

 

[crossref]

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

happy with this approach.

When i'm in the middle i'd try not to cause a problem by discussing all outcomes with coaches and capts.

If a side goes to 14 due to YC and the player off is a fwd then we go 7 v 7 for all scrums during the 10 min bin, however If the YC is a fwd and the team down to 14 choose to bring a back in, it's their choice and i'd only allow him to play in the backrow, anywhere else would be at the say so of the coach, but if after any scrum i didn't think he was up to it i'd send him to the backs and we'd be at 7 v 7.

AND if they bring a back into the fwds for the scrum he is there for ALL scrums during the 10 min bin.

If it's a back we stay at 8 v 8, no questions!

If they don't like it, we can discuss in the bar/staff room afterwards:wink:

BFG - your approach could be summarised as
- team with 14 opt whether it is 7 or 8 at first scrum
- then you make them stick with it.

However by the second scrum because of rolling subs there might be - quite genuinely, not as a ploy or anything - three different players on the pitch, with different abilities. More forwards, fewer backs, or vice versa ... But you wouldn't let them change their formation?

What justification would you give in the bar afterward?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

happy with this approach.

When i'm in the middle i'd try not to cause a problem by discussing all outcomes with coaches and capts.

If a side goes to 14 due to YC and the player off is a fwd then we go 7 v 7 for all scrums during the 10 min bin, however If the YC is a fwd and the team down to 14 choose to bring a back in, it's their choice and i'd only allow him to play in the backrow, anywhere else would be at the say so of the coach, but if after any scrum i didn't think he was up to it i'd send him to the backs and we'd be at 7 v 7.

AND if they bring a back into the fwds for the scrum he is there for ALL scrums during the 10 min bin.

If it's a back we stay at 8 v 8, no questions!

If they don't like it, we can discuss in the bar/staff room afterwards:wink:

I have stayed out of this until someone (cheers BFG) actually put their head above the parapet.

I adopted the BFG approach the last time it happened to me U17s in Jan. Lots of moaning from the 2nd row of side with 15 - how can we control the ball at the back? What about our #8 pick up moves?

Quelled with "shut up, get in or I'll FK you"

10 minutes later all sorted. :biggrin:

 

[Davet]

BFG LLP - agree.

Explanation in the bar is, "That's the law, at least as I see it. You may disagree, but it seems to be a potential grey area. If you disgaree then maybe you should go to the RFU for clarification?"

 

[nealed]

BFG LLP Davet
i agree

its really simple
lose a back
8v8 in scrum remains

lose a forward
choice can 14 man team can but a back into forwards if want to =8v8
if not 7v7 and side with 15 have to drop a player into backs

as far as subs concerned, have to stick with 8 forwards if a back was carded
if forward injury occurs and have no other forward to replace then common sense prevails

am i missing something?

 

[crossref]

BFG LLP Davet
i agree

its really simple
lose a back
8v8 in scrum remains

so at the first scrum after the back was YC, if a flanker drops out and stands at wing ... you are going to say "no, no, come over here and get in that scrum"

(yes, I thnik you're missing something!)

(actually, the last time I YC a centre, by the time we had the next scrum, some time later, a flanker had some time ago gone off (rolling subs recall) and a centre had come on.. so even though I had YCd a back, there were still only seven forwards on the pitch.)

 

[TheBFG]

so at the first scrum after the back was YC, if a flanker drops out and stands at wing ... you are going to say "no, no, come over here and get in that scrum"

That is exactly what i would say := Because that's how i understand the laws of the game to be, if they don't like it tough, there's only a XXX mins on the bin, do what you like once your player who lacks self control comes back on

Still want to argue:Zip: see me in the bar!

 

[Davet]

Crossref - if due to rolling subs, 15 on each side on the pitch, Red take off a #8 and sub him with a winger - are you happy if they play with only 7 forwards in the scrum (since no one else on the pitch is trained as a "forward"), forcing thier opponents to do the same, and thus each team plays with an extra back?

 

[crossref]

and if the flanker was substutitued, and a wing came on.. what then?

(really, I am curious)

 

[crossref]

Crossref - if due to rolling subs, 15 on each side on the pitch, Red take off a #8 and sub him with a winger - are you happy if they play with only 7 forwards in the scrum (since no one else on the pitch is trained as a "forward"), forcing thier opponents to do the same, and thus each team plays with an extra back?

on moment

 

[crossref]

hang on.. diodn't read it properly

 

[Davet]

My question related to 15 each on the pitch, not 14 on one side.

 

[crossref]

Crossref - if due to rolling subs, 15 on each side on the pitch, Red take off a #8 and sub him with a winger - are you happy if they play with only 7 forwards in the scrum (since no one else on the pitch is trained as a "forward"), forcing thier opponents to do the same, and thus each team plays with an extra back?

it's an odd scenario.
15 v 15

no i would tell them they had to pack down with eight and if they said they did not feel they had eight people capable of scrummaging safely, then I would order uncontested scrums, and explain to the opposing captian and coach what was happening. If it was a League game i would probably send a note to the League organisers explaining what had happened, and what had been said.

What would you do?

 

[Dixie]

no i would tell them they had to pack down with eight and if they said they did not feel they had eight people capable of scrummaging safely, then I would order uncontested scrums

Good answer ...

 

[Davet]

After this thread I really don't know.

My instinct would be to say that if this is a rolling sub that means you can't scrum with 8 then you can't make the sub.

If it's an injury to #8 and you have forwards available to bring on, then do so, rather than simply bring on a back.

If you have no more forwards left, then bring on a back so you play with 15, and then we go to 7man scrums - both sides.

However I do see a whole can of worms in the way the law is written.

My position is based on analogy with senior law, which rules at U19 unless expicitly modified, and a general notion that the game should not be subject to chopping and changing like that.

As far as explaining the decision after the game ('cos during the game they shut up and do as they're told) then I have sufficient logic to stand my ground, they may not agree, and may push questions up the tree, that's their privilege.

 

[crossref]

obviously this whole thread has strayed into the hypothetical.

in real life I have yet to encounter any problems: the team with fourteen have presented either seven or eight to the scrum, and stuck with that for the ten minutes of the YC.

however: I did have, as I said, a centre YC after which they took off a forward and replaced with a centre, and played seven in the scrum. No one objected.

(and TBH I think the motivation was more about bringing on the v good centre they had on the touchline rather than worrying about numbers in the scrum)

 

[TheBFG]

and if the flanker was substutitued, and a wing came on.. what then?

(really, I am curious)

MANAGE IT

 

[Phil E]

however: I did have, as I said, a centre YC after which they took off a forward and replaced with a centre, and played seven in the scrum. No one objected.

But since the scrum numbers need to be balanced, you are allowing one team to dictate how many the other team can have in the scrum.

Do we want to allow this?