[Scrum] Uncontested. Man off law and updated logic tree

[CrouchTPEngage]

Can anyone point me to an updated F R logic tree.
I read a thread on here recently which concluded that , when a team loses a prop , due to card or injury, AND there is no suitable replacement the the referr must start using uncontested scrums. The other conclusion, was that there was also a "man off" law in which the offemding team must drop a player. I presume this is to deter teams from abusing the laws by using the uncontested option for tactical advarage ?

Idies anyone have a reference fire this please?
If i yelliw card a prop, and there is no replacement, do the offenders then need to go down to 13 players for 10 mins?

 

[crossref]

It varies from competition to competition .. you need to read the regs for the competitions you ref in

 

[Christy]

Does this apply to the progfesional tv rugby .
It seems that not being able to replace the 1st player is a fair rule .
Stay at 14 players , but put 8 in uncontested scrum
But to instruct another player off as well seems odd .

I understand player 1 gets sin binned ,
For player 16 to come on at next scrum .
A player else where on field must leave to allow player 16 on .
This means they still down to 14 men .

But if there is no trained front row available ( for genuine injury reasons )
It seems odd that another player has to leave also .

If a team has fulfilled their front row requirements .
How can they be extra punished for genuinely not being able to make a change .

 

[OB..]

I am not aware of any ruling or law that made a team reduce to 13 players (rather than 14) if unable to replace a front rower.

 

[crossref]

Clarification 1 of 2018 says that you reduce to 13, but applies only to games with a squad of 23 .. ie international games

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

Clarification 1 of 2018 says that you reduce to 13, but applies only to games with a squad of 23 .. ie international games

Thanks crossref. So there is no disincentive for a team to go uncontested when there is plenty of tactical advantage to do so ?

I have now found a link to http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Docu...32/72/43/RFURegulation13Appendix2_English.pdf
Paragraph 15(b) . I shall paste in here to save time:
------
In League Matches at Levels 3 and below, Cup Matches and Play-Off
Matches if on any occasion uncontested scrum(s) are ordered by the
Referee, in accordance with (a)(i) above, due to injury (including a
temporary blood injury) or consequent to a Player being temporarily
suspended or ordered off or for any other reason, the team concerned
shall not be entitled to replace the Player whose departure caused the
uncontested scrum. On the return to the field of a front row Player
who has been temporarily excluded the Match shall continue with
contested scrums provided it is safe to do so. Subject to paragraph
18 below, the result of the match shall stand
----
Not simply worded ?
I'd be interested to know how to interpret this

 

[crossref]

That says that when you lose a front row you stay at 14
In internationals if you have a YC and go uncontested then you have to go to 13

 

[Phil E]

----
Not simply worded ?
I'd be interested to know how to interpret this

Ignoring the new clarification for 23 man squads.

If a team cannot replace a front row (at any time) and as a result the game goes uncontested. then the player that went off to cause the uncontested cannot be replaced.

So any game with uncontested scrums will be 15v14

If the player went off temporarily as a Yellow Card, then when he comes back on from the card its 15v15 again and contested.

However, as CR says check local competition rules as they can waive this and stay at 15v15 in some competitions.

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

Thanks PHil. That makes sense.
But in the specific example where their last known FR player get a yellow-card.
Which is correct.

1) They play 15 v 14 for 10 mins and , if there is a scrum in that 10 mins, and they declare they must go uncontested, then they must lose another player. So we have 15 v13 on the pitch with the requirement of 8 in the scrum meaning its 5 backs v 7 backs. After 10 mins, we go back to 15 v 15 and contested.

2) They play 15 v 14 for 10 mins, at the next scrum (in that 10 minute sin bin period ) they go uncontested. We keep it 15 v 14 on the pitch with 8-each in the uncontested scrum ? After the 10 mins, we go back to 15v15 and contested scrums

Thanks

 

[Phil E]

Thanks PHil. That makes sense.
But in the specific example where their last known FR player get a yellow-card.
Which is correct.

1) They play 15 v 14 for 10 mins and , if there is a scrum in that 10 mins, and they declare they must go uncontested, then they must lose another player. So we have 15 v13 on the pitch with the requirement of 8 in the scrum meaning its 5 back v 7 backs.

2) They play 15 v 14 for 10 mins, at the next scrum (in that 10 minute sin bin period ) they go uncontested. We keep it 15 v 14 on the pitch with 8-each in the uncontested scrum ?

Thanks

No 2 is correct for you and me.

The extra man down to 13 in example 1 is only for a 23 man squad at top level.

 

[crossref]

In an RFU league 2 is correct
In an international game it's 1
In the Sussex Merit Tables last season was also 1 (special Sussex rule), but this season in some circumstances it's a choice between (2) and statinf at 15 and accepting a 14 point penalty

In the Middlesex merit table Div 4 its neither .. you stay 15 v 15

Ie .. no one can answer this question definitevly without knowing what competition you are reffing in

But for RFU leagues it is (2)

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

Thanks crossref. This is for RFU leagues (level 9 and lower)
There is confusion.
I dont' blame coaches being a bit bemused by refs which seem to alter between the 2 camps on a weekly basis.

Look at this link: (should be accessible to all )
https://www.surreyrugby.co.uk/docum...ow/145-fr-notice-to-surrey-clubs-2017-18.html

It's guidance appears to be suggesting that the "one-man off" rule still applies this season.
Fellow refs are divided about 50/50 on how they are enfircing this law at level 9 anyway

 

[crossref]

Sussex !

Not Surrey which as you say is different again

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

Sussex !

Not Surrey which as you say is different again

Yeah. sorry. I was just finding an example. I have reffed in both counties this season
Just feels a bit like anarchy as to which game/level/region combination you are assigned to on the day.
I'd forgive any ref for getting this wrong.

 

[crossref]

It also doesn't help that the regs are very hard to find.
The most up to date regs I could find for Surrey around Christmas, were 2015/16

 

[didds]

Thanks crossref. This is for RFU leagues (level 9 and lower)
There is confusion.
I dont' blame coaches being a bit bemused by refs which seem to alter between the 2 camps on a weekly basis.

Look at this link: (should be accessible to all )
https://www.surreyrugby.co.uk/docum...ow/145-fr-notice-to-surrey-clubs-2017-18.html

It's guidance appears to be suggesting that the "one-man off" rule still applies this season.
Fellow refs are divided about 50/50 on how they are enfircing this law at level 9 anyway

man off - at level 9?

really?

strewth...

didds

 

[crossref]

didds in the merit tables man off has been getting slowly less popular.
Four years ago the Middx MT had man off at every division, now it has it only for divs 1 to 3

Sussex as above has relaxed

Sanity prevailing

 

[thepercy]

The Man Off Rule applies to local competitions in the RFU that use interchanges, this does not require the team that is carded to remove an extra player.

23 man squad, not just Pro and International, follow the laws in 3.15,18 and 19 in conjunction with clarification 1 of 2018

 

[crossref]

The Man Off Rule applies to local competitions in the RFU that use interchanges, this does not require the team that is carded to remove an extra player.

That's not true , as per the examples given above

In some competitions it applies, in others it doesn't , in some you get an option (lose a player or lose some points )