Uncontested Ospreys Scrums

[Jacko]

Anyone seen anything more about this? Certainly raised an eyebrow for me. Sequence of events appeared to be:-
Starting hooker goes off injured and is replaced as required.
Replacement hooker goes off injured.
Romaine Poite (ref) is advised by 4th/5th official that Ospreys are out of hookers, it is therefore uncontested scrums, so the replacement hooker cannot be replaced (and Ospreys go down to 13 as a result of earlier unrelated red card).
At least one uncontested scrum takes place.
After a while, we are back to contested, with the starting loosehead playing at hooker - I presume that meant Ospreys were back up to 14.

The only reason I could come up with for that sequence was that the starting loosehead was in the blood bin when the replacement hooker went off, and once he was patched up he went on to make the scrums contested again. Either that, or he was given some training at how to play hooker and sent on when he was deemed STE...

Did I miss something??

 

[johnnied]

I was confused about this at the time. Having looked at the Ospreys match report -

"...Having lost two players to injury in the first period, Richard Hibbard failed to reappear after the break, Scott Baldwin entering the fray. However, the replacement hooker lasted just nine minutes before he too was forced off following a lengthy spell of treatment. That left the Ospreys without a hooker, and while a decision was made on who to send on in his place, the game went on with just 13 white shirts on the field and passive scrums......The Ospreys were restored to 14 when loose head prop Marc Thomas took to the field in place of Baldwin in the 52nd minute, leaving the visitors with three props in the front row..."

Seems like they weren't ready!!

 

[crossref]

wasn't there a ruling/clarification in any case that says that if you are already playing with 14 you don't actually have to go to 13 if subsequently go uncontested.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

wasn't there a ruling/clarification in any case that says that if you are already playing with 14 you don't actually have to go to 13 if subsequently go uncontested.

So if you have a player sent off you don't need to comply with man-off thereafter?

Sounds stupid - so you're probably right!

 

[Jacko]

wasn't there a ruling/clarification in any case that says that if you are already playing with 14 you don't actually have to go to 13 if subsequently go uncontested.

Nope - the clarification was that if a front row player gets sent off and there is no one available to replace him (so uncontested scrums) then the team plays with 14 rather than having to nominate someone additional to leave as well.

If there is a prior red card, you go down to 13 if a subsequent injury results in uncontested scrums (even if the red card contributed to the situation).

 

[crossref]

so if you have exactly two TH props (and no other player capable of playing TH prop)

- if prop 1 is injured, and replaced with prop #2 and then later prop 2 is RC, so scrums are uncontested, then you stay with 14 players

but
- if prop 1 is RC, and a flanker goes off, to be replaced with prop #2, and then later prop 2 is injured, so scrums are uncontested, : then you have 13 players


hmmm.... in both cases one was injured, the other was sent off, but different results. Doesn't make sense really.

 

[Jacko]

so if you have exactly two TH props (and no other player capable of playing TH prop)

- if prop 1 is injured, and replaced with prop #2 and then later prop 2 is RC, so scrums are uncontested, then you stay with 14 players

but
- if prop 1 is RC, and a flanker goes off, to be replaced with prop #2, and then later prop 2 is injured, so scrums are uncontested, : then you have 13 players


hmmm.... doesn't make sense really.

Your analysis of the two situations is correct. Whether or not the rule is perfect is a separate issue.