[Scrum] Uncontested scrum - substitution of other props

[scarsick]

In a recent highly competitive Under 18 game, with authorised rolling substituions, one side had a prop yellow carded, the coach claimed they had no suitably qualified props (convenient as they were losing at scrum time) leading to uncontested scrums. At the next scrum, the coach of the 14 boy side then substituted the other prop for a back, enabling said prop to have rest (not injured). After 10 mins the yellow carded player returned to the field and then at next scrum second prop retruned to the field and replacement non-prop replacement left the field.
Contested scrums then continued with one side with 2 fresh props. The offending team has gained an advantage by going to uncontested scrums, by resting its prop and replacing with a more mobile/fresh player. Probably legal under rolling substitutions, but will we get to stage with uncontested scrums of then filling the field with non-props and then bringing them back on for lineouts etc..
Does not seem in spirit of the game that team has its advantage of playing against 14 men erodoed.

If a team was consitently offending - offside in this case - then refs should not select a front row palyer to be yellow carded due to disruption to scrums.
Views please....

 

[chbg]

With Rolling Subs this seems to be legally ok. Smart coach. It would also have been ok for the other team do have done the same - using up to four of their permitted substitutions to bring off and then back on both props. Other coach has to get smarter!

Having given a team warning, the referee cannot ignore the next infringement just because the YC would not penalise that team sufficiently, in whoever's mind. If it is the least capable player on the field, then so be it. However the first YC does not reset the penalty count, so the next infringer is just as likely to receive a YC.

Particularly for persistent offside, there is often more than one player infringing at the same time. The smart referee easily on top of the match could determine to whom to give the YC, and going to uncontested scrums might influence that decision.

 

[crossref]

There is a clarification out there.. Even when scrums are uncontested you have to put your STE players in the front row, if you have them

 

[didds]

With Rolling Subs this seems to be legally ok. Smart coach. It would also have been ok for the other team do have done the same - using up to four of their permitted substitutions to bring off and then back on both props.

Its youth rugby - notwithstanding competition regs there is no limit to substitutions AIUI.

??

didds

 

[crossref]

this is the clarification I was remembering -- the gist of it is that even if scrums are uncontested, STE players must be used in the front row (if you have them)

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&clarlaw=3&clarification=77

I remember this causing quite a lot of impact at the time, as it was quite common practice at age-group levels where I reffed, for teams to take off their props when scrums were uncontested, usually replacing them with other forwards, but more mobile ones. That stopped.

Of course in the game you describe the referee allowed it, but I don't see that this gave an advantage to one team, as the other team could have done the same thing.

[it is, of course, a silly Law. In any uncontested scrum there will always be at least one non-STE player taking part on the front row so there is demonstrably no safety issue. In games with rolling subs, of course teams should be allowed make changes if they wish]

 

[TheBFG]

what if the "subbed" prop had "a knock" :wink:

Hate to say it, but smart move by the coach :shrug:

 

[crossref]

it's not really great to be asking kids to fake an injury, though, is it ? That's not really what we should coaching rugby for.

but if the ref doesn't demur to the substitution and with unlimited interchanges in youth games, why not ?

 

[chbg]

Its youth rugby - notwithstanding competition regs there is no limit to substitutions AIUI.
didds

Thank you - I learnt that about 2 hours later, thankfully just before a Colts Cup match. RFU Reg 15 Appx 2. But neither side came anywhere near using the adult limit on interchanges, even though they had 7 replacements each.