yes, different systems - same flaw.
Uncontested Scrums
- Thread starter the magpie
- Start date
yes, different systems - same flaw.
Sorry, perhaps I'm being thick and it needs spelling out in words of no more than 2 syllables, but what were they up to exactly?
I can't see what they were gaining; they suggest taking an injured prop off and bring a substituted prop back on. I know the lawbook says
3.4 PLAYERS NOMINATED AS SUBSTITUTESFor international matches a Union may nominate up to seven replacements/substitutes.
A team can substitute up to two front row players (subject to Law 3.14 when it may be three) and up to five other players.
but this was a replacement - not a substitution. Trust me, I'm not trying to be aukward, but I can't see the friggin problem.
Last edited:
they get an extra replacement and bring on a rested prop - and presumably could do so further, effectively having 9 replacement events (they couldn't do it with the 3rd FR as he must already be injured, since you can only sub 2 of the FR not all 3)
menace
Referees in Australia
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,657
- Post Likes
- 633
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Not sure how you can say this when iRB had announced that AR,ably assisted by his team, was wrong in the first instance by denying the replacement ..as per http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediaz...id=2063781.html#irb+statement+match+officials
It was ARs stuff up that the team manager had to try something to keep the integrity of the game with 15 on the field by declaring NPA 'uninjured' when wrongly denied a lawful replacement.
If they were within the bounds of the law why were they perceived to be 'trying something' .
the SA Refs site seems to expalin quite succinctly what happened
although they conclude (I think) that Rolland was correct, and the system is rubbish.
http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2829805/
the key issue to me seems to be whether, in international rugby, there is a limit on the number of interchanges available.
anyway the IRB seem to say AR was right. Oh no, he was wrong. SA refs seem to think he was right.
I think the IRB don't want to contemplate the possibility that their system could yield a situation where there are uncontested scrums, and meanwhile there is a fit STE player on the bench willing but unable to play. no one wants that situation to happen.
although they conclude (I think) that Rolland was correct, and the system is rubbish.
http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2829805/
the key issue to me seems to be whether, in international rugby, there is a limit on the number of interchanges available.
anyway the IRB seem to say AR was right. Oh no, he was wrong. SA refs seem to think he was right.
I think the IRB don't want to contemplate the possibility that their system could yield a situation where there are uncontested scrums, and meanwhile there is a fit STE player on the bench willing but unable to play. no one wants that situation to happen.
Dixie
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 12,773
- Post Likes
- 338
Difficult, because it involves intimate knowledge of the numebrs on the abcks of all Gold replacements (and indeed players, with several out of position - for example, Berrick Barnes was playing 15 instead of his usual 10/12, and Curtley Beale was playing 10 instead of his usual 15).
Incorrect as to the red bit. Gold 16 (faingaa - a hooker) and Gold 17 (Slipper - a prop) were FR trained replacements. The sequence as regards the FR was:
31st minute: Gold 3 off; Gold 17 on. (Tactical)
67th minute: Gold 1 off; Gold 3 returns (Injury)
These appear to be the two FR substitutions allowed by law 3.4. Alternatively, it may be one substitution, one replacement. This is of crucial importance.
By the time of the contentious "injury" to Polota Nau (Gold 2) with 13 minutes to play, the Wallabies had taken off two front row players. In all they had made seven substitutions/replacements - Anthony Fainga'a for Berrick Barnes (15), Slipper (17) for Robinson (3?), Mike Harris for Adam Ashley-Cooper, Rob Simmons for Kane Douglas, Scott Higginbotham for Radike Samo and Brett Sheehan for Digby Ioane. That adds up to seven. Of the seven taken off, Barnes, Ashley-Cooper, Samo, Ioane and Alexander were injured. They were replaced. Robinson and Simmons were substituted.
When the referee refused to allow Saia Faingaa to come on, he explained to the Australians that they had 'used all their subs'. What is somewhat unclear is whether only seven interchanges may be made, or whether all legal interchanges can be made using the seven nominated alternatives. So given that of the 7 interchanges 5 were injury replacements, does that mean that there were five more substitutions available? The answer is unclear, but probably not.
Assuming that only 7 interchanges were allowable and had been made, and that of these the two permissible FR interchanges had been made, then what provision might override that? The iRB says that this provision is the exception in 3.12. That provision stipulates when a rpeviously-subbed player may come back on. It does NOT apply in the situation at hand, because Saia Faingaa (Gold replacement hooker) had played no part in the game to date, and thus was NOT a previously-subbed player.
,
Dixie
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 12,773
- Post Likes
- 338
[
Following a 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.
It can be said because it is not at all clear that the iRB statement is remotely accurate, or indeed relevant. It says:
Following a 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.
We need to deconstruct this to understand its meaning. It cannot mean (as it seems to suggest) that the exception applied to the attempt to bring Faingaa on. He was not a "previously substituted player", which is what the exception relates to. The more likely meaning is that earlier in the game, the exception applied at the 67th minute (which was recognised, as Robinson was indeed allowed back on to replace Alexander). The implication is that this means that a "replacement" is not one of the permitted substitutions mentioned in law 3.4. If correct, this has very wide-ranging impact. Among other things, it means that in this game Australia, though having made 7 interchanges, had only made 2 subs. They had another five subs available technically, if they had any people available to fulfil them. of these additional 5, one was a FR sub, notwithstanding that Aus had already made two FR interchanges.
You ask why they were preceived to "trying something". Answer: because when Faingaa was not permitted to come on to replace the allegedly "injured" Gold 2, that same player attempted to come back on! Clearly not so badly hurt then :chin:
31st minute: Gold 3 off; Gold 17 on. (Tactical) This is a substitution, and Gold 3 is allowed to return to the field to cover for an injured player
67th minute: Gold 1 off; Gold 3 returns (Injury) This is a replacement and Gold 3 returns to cover for an injured player.
But where do we get the notion of "interchanges" at International level - that's a term that surely applies to the rolling subs as per RFU regs in the community game.
The Law provides 7 Substitutes/replacements at international level - having carefully explained in Definitions the difference between a substitute and a replacement - essentially the substitute is a tactical one, the replacement is due to injury. The law also very carefully explains that a player who is replaced - ie injured - may NOT rejoin the match under any circumstances (note rolling subs is different).
It explains that, conversely, a player who is substituted may rejoin the match - under certain circumstances - either in place of a blood injury to any of his players, or when a FR player is carded or injured.
The Law also says that a MAXIMUM of 2 FR players may be substituted. So if the 3rd FR is to come off and have another take his place it MUST be because of injury, and hence a replacement, not a substitution. It then says that a Maximum of 5 non-FR players may be Substituted
Total permitted Substitutions are then 7 - neatly matching the number of players on the bench.
HOWEVER - Replacements are NOT Substitutes, and as we see from the above a substituted player may return under given circumstances.
SO - imagine that there have been 7 Substitutions so far - all used up. Then a FR player gets injured - what reason is there to prevent one of the previously subbed players coming back on as a REPLACEMENT. It is clearly allowed for in Law, and the limit of 2 substitutions to FR players is just that; a limit on Substitutions - NOT Subs plus replacements. If it were then we could never ever see the entire front row being changed by the end of the game. And we do. Often.
The same principle surely applies to other players, where the limit on substitutions is just that, and if a back gets a blood injury then a substiuted player is permitted to replace him - note the word replace used in exceptions 1 and 2 to 3.12
I cannot see any barrier to a situation where after 7 tactical substitions have been made a team suffer from 5 backs getting open wounds and the 5 subbed backs then returning to cover for them, and the 2 subbed props returning for two FR teammates who have either also been cut, or otherwise injured.
So 7 subs, followed by 7 replacements- so long as the required conditions (blood for backs; blood, injury, or card for FR) are in place.
In practice however the 7 subs don't all have to precede the 7 replacements - there may be some intermingling.
And indeed a given player could be subbed off - return to cover for a blood injury, come back off when the blood bin is over, and then do the same again for the same or another player - frankly without limit.
67th minute: Gold 1 off; Gold 3 returns (Injury) This is a replacement and Gold 3 returns to cover for an injured player.
But where do we get the notion of "interchanges" at International level - that's a term that surely applies to the rolling subs as per RFU regs in the community game.
The Law provides 7 Substitutes/replacements at international level - having carefully explained in Definitions the difference between a substitute and a replacement - essentially the substitute is a tactical one, the replacement is due to injury. The law also very carefully explains that a player who is replaced - ie injured - may NOT rejoin the match under any circumstances (note rolling subs is different).
It explains that, conversely, a player who is substituted may rejoin the match - under certain circumstances - either in place of a blood injury to any of his players, or when a FR player is carded or injured.
The Law also says that a MAXIMUM of 2 FR players may be substituted. So if the 3rd FR is to come off and have another take his place it MUST be because of injury, and hence a replacement, not a substitution. It then says that a Maximum of 5 non-FR players may be Substituted
Total permitted Substitutions are then 7 - neatly matching the number of players on the bench.
HOWEVER - Replacements are NOT Substitutes, and as we see from the above a substituted player may return under given circumstances.
SO - imagine that there have been 7 Substitutions so far - all used up. Then a FR player gets injured - what reason is there to prevent one of the previously subbed players coming back on as a REPLACEMENT. It is clearly allowed for in Law, and the limit of 2 substitutions to FR players is just that; a limit on Substitutions - NOT Subs plus replacements. If it were then we could never ever see the entire front row being changed by the end of the game. And we do. Often.
The same principle surely applies to other players, where the limit on substitutions is just that, and if a back gets a blood injury then a substiuted player is permitted to replace him - note the word replace used in exceptions 1 and 2 to 3.12
I cannot see any barrier to a situation where after 7 tactical substitions have been made a team suffer from 5 backs getting open wounds and the 5 subbed backs then returning to cover for them, and the 2 subbed props returning for two FR teammates who have either also been cut, or otherwise injured.
So 7 subs, followed by 7 replacements- so long as the required conditions (blood for backs; blood, injury, or card for FR) are in place.
In practice however the 7 subs don't all have to precede the 7 replacements - there may be some intermingling.
And indeed a given player could be subbed off - return to cover for a blood injury, come back off when the blood bin is over, and then do the same again for the same or another player - frankly without limit.
OK, but if they substitute a player, then their best starting player will be off the pitch. I can see the logic of resting him if he's blowing out of his arse .... but (assuming he was a tactical substitution) to get him back on, the player who went on instead of him would either have to be YCd, RCd, injured or a have a "bleeding or open wound". The first two obviously are not recommended, the 4th can't be guaranteed (and after Bloodgate, there's holy hell to pay if you try and fake it) which leaves just the injury option. After Bloodgate, wasn't there a ruling that players going off injured at international level, had to be confirmed as injured by an independent doctor?
OK. Nos 1,2 and 3 are STE. We just need to know which ones on the bench were the STE subs, regardless of which number they had on.
One substitution and 1 replacement surely. They've still got 1 tactical FR substitution left available to them if they want it. The lawbook clearly allows 7 substitutions (defined as tactical) and doesn't say 7 "interchanges" which I assume includes injuries.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2003
- Messages
- 9,650
- Post Likes
- 7
Hahah, not quite, I'd have felt the same about any team, though I believe Deans is quite clever for thinking outside the box and playing within the laws, but not quite the spirit. But he needs too, the Aussie team is crushed by injuries.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2003
- Messages
- 9,650
- Post Likes
- 7
Whilst AR was the ref, I'm fairly sure it would have been the no. 4 that relayed info to AR that the Aussies had no more replacements left. AR just did the explaining.
Perhaps.
Perhaps.
menace
Referees in Australia
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,657
- Post Likes
- 633
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
We need to deconstruct this to understand its meaning.
Oh I don't know. I understood the last sentence quite well.
You ask why they were preceived to "trying something". Answer: because when Faingaa was not permitted to come on to replace the allegedly "injured" Gold 2, that same player attempted to come back on! Clearly not so badly hurt then :chin:
What - you don't think the team manager was somewhat forced to try and send back an injured player because of ARs f-up just so he can keep his team at 15????? I'm sure if you were a coach trying to keep a full complement you would try it. sure gold 2 may not have been injured to the point of not being able to physically stand..but he may be injured just enough to be ineffective and be conservative to assess the injury. Doesn't mean they were trying to cheat as what seems to be suggested?
If nothing else at least this event has put a spotlight on law 3... And I suspect most of us are now taking more notice of what the hell it all means. Somewhere in it lies an answer.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2003
- Messages
- 9,650
- Post Likes
- 7
Expect a Law Clarification from the ARU or SARU soon I expect.
Dixie
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 12,773
- Post Likes
- 338
Can you show me which bit that is in? All I can find is 3.4, which says that an International team may nominate 7 replacements/substitutions. It doesn't mention (clearly or otherwise) how many (if any) of them are allowed to be used during the game. I think the assumption has always been that you are allowed 7 interchanges, as any interchange will either be a replacement or a substitution. So you nominate 7, you are allowed to make 7 interchanges (Davet, I know that the word only correctly applies in England for rolling subs, but it is a useful shorthand for a swap of one player for another). This is the assumption that now seems to be false. Aus had made 7 interchanges, of which 5 were replacements. That first sentence of 3.4 doesn't seem to care whether it's a replacement or a sub:
[LAWS]For international matches a Union may nominate up to seven replacements/substitutes.[/LAWS]
The iRB now seems to say that there is a distinction, and that replacements don't count. Or something? It's all very much les than clear to me.
as sarefs observe
quite.
I must say it never occered to me that there was limit on interchanges. it just seemed to me that you could make as many legal interchanges as you like, within the restriction of having only seven subs. I guess not.
Although - that can't be quite right. If you have a succession of bloods and YC front row players, is it right that eventually you run out of interchanges?
quite.
I must say it never occered to me that there was limit on interchanges. it just seemed to me that you could make as many legal interchanges as you like, within the restriction of having only seven subs. I guess not.
Although - that can't be quite right. If you have a succession of bloods and YC front row players, is it right that eventually you run out of interchanges?
Last edited:
(quoted purely for the reference - too long to repeat).
I think this is an excellent summary of the situation when Rolling Substitutions do not apply.
My understanding is that under Rolling Substitutions a team is expected to manage the number of interchanges to cover problems, and if they run out - touch luck.
It might make sense to allow a FR to return in case of injury, and the current version of Rolling Subs does not say precisely what the impact is on other areas of the law.
Then see my post at #50 above.
There are only 7 on the bench. These may be used as Subsitutes and or Replacements
There is a limit on the number of substitutions that may be made - 2 FR ; 5 Other Players
No limit given on replacements, but there are limitations on what circumstances must be in place so a previously substituted player may return to the game.
Interchanges don't apply - imagine a situation where you have say 12 who is subbed off, in exchange for 21 - who then gets a blood injury and 12 comes back on, then goes off again, say 2 minutes later, when the bleeding is controlled. Then 13 gets a cut - repeat, then 14 - repeat, then back to 21 again... There is nothing in Law to prevent 12 coming on and off the pitch ad infinitum.
Dixie
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 12,773
- Post Likes
- 338
quite.
[LAWS](d) The replacement of a front row forward must come from suitably trained and experienced players who started the match or from the nominated replacements.[/LAWS]
Are we now to assume that FR substitutes (as opposed to replacements) can be any Tom Dick or Harry from the double-digit brigade? or indeed from the Terraces?