Uncontested Scrums

[damo]

The IRB think Rolland was right.

The referee had ruled that the Wallabies had already used their seven replacements – two of them involving the same player, loose-head prop Benn Robinson.
The Wallabies believed that Fainga'a should have been allowed on as another front-row option, but the governing body has ruled that Rolland was correct.
Advertisement
“The referee was correct,” said the IRB's James Fitzgerald in response to an inquiry from the Fairfax. “Australia had already used their seven replacements permissible.”

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...n-wrong-irb-20121003-26y7w.html#ixzz28D6ouNkb



Although I haven't been able to find a lengthy reasoning online, it appears from this little quote that for the purposes of 3.4, an injury "replacement" is treated the same as a tactical "substitution". You get 7 changes, regardless of whether they are for injury or tactical.

Is there any other way of reading what Mr Fitzgerald has said?

 

[Dixie]

Although I haven't been able to find a lengthy reasoning online, it appears from this little quote that for the purposes of 3.4, an injury "replacement" is treated the same as a tactical "substitution". You get 7 changes, regardless of whether they are for injury or tactical.

Is there any other way of reading what Mr Fitzgerald has said?

There is another possible interpretation. Your quote starts: "The referee had ruled that the Wallabies had already used their seven replacements". The referee is the sole judge of fact and law on the pitch, so we therefore have an absolute: 7 replacements had been used. Consequently, given that absolute ruling, it was correct not to allow any more.

This interpretation neatly sidesteps the need to ask whether Allain had got his calculations right, or had become confused about the difference (if any) between subs and replacements. What amazes me about this situation is that it was down to Allain, supported by Romain Poite, to be doing the counting and the thinking. Isn't that what a #4, 5, 6 or 7 is for in that pressure environment?

 

[Cave Dweller]

It is simple. If you used up all 7 subs then you do not get another sub.
BUT

You can bring back one of your substituted front rowers. But you have to do that before uncontested scrums is called. As soon as when uncontested scrum was called Australia lost that option to bring Alexander on.

 

[Cave Dweller]

Alexander could not, legally, have come back on. Under 3.12, Robinson, being a substituted player, can not return to the field as a substitute, only as an injury replacement, in which case Alexander would have been done for the day.

3.12 does not apply to Fainga- he was not a substituted player. He was a nominated replacement/substitute, and under law, I still can't find justification for him not being allowed to replace TPN.

How can you use Fainga to replace TPN when you have used up all your substitutions?

Again read this

A substituted player may replace a front row player when injured, temporarily suspended or sent off unless the referee has ordered uncontested scrums prior to the event which led to the front row player leaving the field of play and the team has used all the permitted replacements and substitutions.

Again "A substituted player may replace"

As well as the "and the team has used all the permitted replacements and substitutions"

3.12 SUBSTITUTED PLAYERS REJOINING THE MATCH
(a) If a player is substituted, that player must not return and play in that match, even to replace
an injured player.
Exception 1: a substituted player may replace a player with an open or bleeding wound.
Exception 2: a substituted player may replace a front row player when injured, temporarily
suspended or sent off unless the referee has ordered uncontested scrums prior to the event
which led to the front row player leaving the field of play and the team has used all the
permitted replacements and substitutions.

You have read the first part but missed the Exception 2 which clearly states a substituted player may replace a injured front rower unless uncontested scrums were called. Uncontested scrums were not called yet so they could have used Alexander instead of trying to bring on a fresh sub when they have already made 7 subs.
Get it now?

 

[Dixie]

Let me put it this way. Alexander could have come back. The period he would have been allowed back is right up to the point where Rolland called for a UNCONTESTED SCRUM. When that happened he could not come back anymore.

I don't think so. Ben Robinson, a previously substituted player, returned to the field of play to replace Alexander. This is only permissible if Alexander is injured, so the fact that it happened is either: prima facie evidence that Aus cheated in much the same way as Harlequins in Bloodgate, potentially opening up the coach to a three year ban from all rugby; OR (more palatable) Alexander was genuinely injured. If so, he was permanently replaced by Robinson:

[LAWS]3.7 PERMANENT REPLACEMENT
A player may be permanently replaced if injured. If the player is permanently replaced, that player must not return and play in that match. The replacement of the injured player must be made when the ball is dead and with the permission of the referee.[/LAWS]

Consequently, Alexander could never have returned to the fray once he was swapped for Robinson .

 

[Cave Dweller]

I don't think so. Ben Robinson, a previously substituted player, returned to the field of play to replace Alexander. This is only permissible if Alexander is injured, so the fact that it happened is either: prima facie evidence that Aus cheated in much the same way as Harlequins in Bloodgate, potentially opening up the coach to a three year ban from all rugby; OR (more palatable) Alexander was genuinely injured. If so, he was permanently replaced by Robinson:

[LAWS]3.7 PERMANENT REPLACEMENT
A player may be permanently replaced if injured. If the player is permanently replaced, that player must not return and play in that match. The replacement of the injured player must be made when the ball is dead and with the permission of the referee.[/LAWS]

Consequently, Alexander could never have returned to the fray once he was swapped for Robinson .

Let me show you guys something.

Vs SA in Perth - On 31 minutes Slipper - sub on Robinson - sub off

On 74 Minutes - Robinson - sub on Alexander - sub off

Robinson has come back. So Alexander must have been deemed injured as he could not have come back according to the laws.

Against SA in Pretoria - 30 Minutes Robinson - sub off Slipper - sub on

On 67 Minutes - Alexander - sub off Robinson - sub on

Again Alexander must have been injured for Robinson to come back. Did Alexander fake a injury so they made use of Exception no 2 to get Robinson back on the field.
They did the same but this time it back fired as "Alexander" already went of with a injury which is the reason why Robinson could return. Alexander could not suddenly get up and come back as he faked a injury and has been doing it through the TRC tournament. Deans used Exception 2 to rotate his props in giving them a breather but this time it backfired.

 

[damo]

^^^

I think we all understand that Cave Dweller. Everyone is suspicious about the tactic. Crucially though, no-one proposed that Alexander would come back on.

The issue is whether another player, Fa'iaga, should have been allowed to go on to the field to replace TPN. Unless I am missing something, the answer to that question has nothing to do with 3.12 and everything to do with 3.4.

 

[damo]

Posted without further comment, except to say that it is possible the law is not quite as unambiguous as it might be.

IRB

The IRB has confirmed that the match official team taking charge of Saturday's Rugby Championship between South Africa and Australia in Pretoria incorrectly prevented Australia from making a substitute during the second half of the match.
Following an initial review, the five-strong match official team acknowledges that they failed to recognise Law 3.12 (Exception 2) when managing a substitution in the 66th minute, which meant that Australia finished the match with 14 players.
Under the Law exception, Australia's Saia Faingaa (16) should have been permitted to replace Australia's Tatafu Polota-Nau (2) as Benn Robinson (1), who had already been substituted, replaced Ben Alexander (3) who was injured during the match. Therefore, Australia had one permitted technical substitution available.
IRB Match Official Selection Committee Chairman John Jeffrey said: "The area of substitution management is a team effort. This was an unfortunate case of human error by the match officials who fully recognise and accept that they made a mistake in the application of the substitution Law."
"All match official performances, including last weekend's match, are thoroughly reviewed and assessed by the IRB and are considered when appointments are made for future Test matches."
Performances during The Rugby Championship will be reviewed at the IRB Match Official Selection Committee meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa this weekend.
Editors Notes:
Law 3.12 (Exception 2): a substituted player may replace a front row player when injured, temporarily suspended or sent off unless the referee has ordered uncontested scrums prior to the event which led to the front row player leaving the field of play and the team has used all the permitted replacements and substitutions.

SAReferees:

http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2829805/

 

[Dixie]

Posted without further comment, except to say that it is possible the law is not quite as unambiguous as it might be.

Very interesting developments, but to me it asks as many questions as it answers. In particular, when law 3.4 says that a team may "nominate" up to seven subs/replacements (let's call them "alternatives" to avoid having to distinguish between them), does this simply mean that the team sheet will have up to 22 names on it, or does it mean that there can be no more than 7 interchanges between alternatives and players?

If it means the latter, then does the exception in 3.12 over-ride the maximum number of interchanges? And does it also over-ride the maximum number of 2 FR interchanges set out in Law 3.4? If the iRB's post-match statement had been followed during the match, Australia would have made 3 FR interchanges and 8 interchanges in total. Is this because the exception in 3.12(b) overrides the relevant provisions in 3.4, or is it because there is a distinction to be made between subs and replacements when counting the numebr of interchanges allowed under 3.4?

PS on edit - as Saia Faingaa (16) was not a previously-substituted player, what on earth has 3.12 (entitled substituted players rejoining the match) got to do with this situation?

 

[crossref]

the definition of injured is very slippery anyway.
if someone has a temporary incapacity - clattered in a tackle which leaves them winded, or is asthmatic and needs a puff of inhaler, or has a dead leg, breaks little finger and needs to get it strapped.

and they leave the field -- then is this injured or tactical?

the rolling subs / limited interchanges system does seem simpler and easier to manage.

 

[Dixie]

the definition of injured is very slippery anyway.

Not at international level. An injured player is one who is medically-certified to be unable to carry on. This is why Polota Nau could not simply come back on when Faingaa was ruled ineligible.

 

[Davet]

Which implies that the winded, dead-legged etc. player is NOT "injured" and thus replaced, but is tactically subbed - allowing his return in an emergency such as another FR problem, or a blood injury.

 

[crossref]

sometimes it is advantageous to be officially 'injured' as it allows a replacement that wouldn't otherwise be allowed
sometime is is advantageous to be NOT injured, as it allows you to come back on later if needed.

it all depends on the postions involvled, and the sub system being used for that game.
we have observed before that in the unlimited rolling subs used in youth games players are vary rarely (almost never) injured, as they all want to preserve the right to come back on the pitch later if needed.

something like asthma is interesting. At the moment a kid has an attack he is often absolutely, unequivicably, medically unfit to continue. But after two or three puffs of ventolin and five minutes rest he is completely recovered, and a doctor would agree he was OK to continue.

 

[Taff]

... Rolland got it smack on right to not allow Faainga to join the match.

... Firstly, did Rolland err in not allowing Fainga to replace Polotu-Nau

Can I make a friendly suggestion please gents? When it comes to technical questions like this one, can we please use Green 1 or Green 4, or Gold 3 etc rather than using the players names? I don't know (I suspect most others don't either) the names of all the Australian and South African FRs, and frankly if using G1, G3 etc I don't need to know. Stick their names in as well as Green 1 or Gold 3 if you feel it's important, but I for one will be frantically scribbling "Gold 1 - off tactical" etc, because the names mean nothing to me.

Now, using the above suggestion can someone please summarise the problem .... because I'm lost? :biggrin:

 

[Davet]

Taff - Agreed. I don't know all their names, I never get much chance to see the games since I don't subscribe to SKY, so am not up to date on who they all are - nor who was on the bench and who was a starter.

 

[crossref]

they had made seven interchanges already

- they announced gold prop was injured so he had to go off, and they will bring a substituted gold prop back on the pitch
- rolland said 'aha no, you can't you have made seven interchanges already'
- they said 'that's not how how it works, is it?'
- rolland said 'oh yes, it is'
- they said 'really? OK in which case he's not injured after all, and he can play on'
- rolland said 'aha, got you, you said he was injured'

Curses.

 

[crossref]

it's funny that we had a whole thread recently contemplating the new system in RFU-land and the possibility that it could lead to uncontested scrums, and 14 on the pitch, while all the time a fit STE prop was on the touchline reeady and willing to play, butr unable to come on.

I said that any set of rules that could lead to that outcome was flawed, and common sense must be that if you have a fit STE player you must be allowed to bring him on, rather, than go uncontested.

And a week later it happened.

And the IRB seem to be wriggling with their own system as it did, indeed lead to that unpalatable situation.
They need to start from scratch and rethink.

It must be (IMO) an over-riding priority that while you have three fit STE players avaialble they must be allowed to play, as uncontested scrums must be avoided if at all possible.

 

[Robert Burns]

Or perhaps Rolland knew what they were up to and was cute enough to not let them get away with it.

Right or Wrong, I'm quite glad he did do it, because it will make the Aussies think a bit before trying it this week in Argentina.

 

[Dickie E]

Or perhaps Rolland knew what they were up to and was cute enough to not let them get away with it.

Right or Wrong, I'm quite glad he did do it, because it will make the Aussies think a bit before trying it this week in Argentina.

Deans, Cooper & Burns - the enemy within.

 

[Phil E]

it's funny that we had a whole thread recently contemplating the new system in RFU-land and the possibility that it could lead to uncontested scrums, and 14 on the pitch, while all the time a fit STE prop was on the touchline reeady and willing to play, butr unable to come on.

Totally different systems. You are comparing apples and oranges, there is no correlation.