Uncontested Scrums

[crossref]

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.

which I think is the case - but it sits uneasily with the compulsory interchanges that a team have to make, and are hard to plan for.
For instance a bleeding front row player: he has to leave the pitch and if there is a scrum someone else has to come on.

Anyway, whatever. The important this is - if it was me I'd have a blanket override on any system that says that even if all interchanges used up, a fit STE can (indeed must) always come on rather than go uncontested for want of him.

 

[Davet]

Agreed, but that isn't the Law.

I know, let's all simply ignore the Law and do what we think is best...

After all that's what Equity means, dunnit?

 

[OB..]

The important this is - if it was me I'd have a blanket override on any system that says that even if all interchanges used up, a fit STE can (indeed must) always come on rather than go uncontested for want of him.

I suspect the law makers are wary of what happened when they first introduced replacements - just two who could only replace injured players. Very quickly players developed the sort of injury you cannot measure objectively - "my back hurts".

Rolling Subs allow a player to come back on after he has shaken off a minor injury. I suspect your relaxation would see a crop of minor "injuries" in the front rows to put FR players effectively outside the restriction on the number of interchanges. At present it is up to the coach to manage things sensibly. Let's see how it goes.

 

[Dixie]

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).

...

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.

This analysis assumes that the words Replacement and Substitute are used consistently. As SA Refs has pointed out, this is not so. I've highlighted 3.5(d) as an example earlier; but from the very paragraph in law that you rely on:

[LAWS]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. Substitutions may only be made when the ball is dead and with the permission of the referee[/LAWS]

Are we then to assume that replacements may be made without the permission of the referee and while the ball is live? If we think that might NOT be the intent of the law, it is because we recognise that this paragraph of law does NOT accurately distinguish between Replacements and Subs. So it would then NOT be appropriate to rely on it as justification for treating replacemetns and subs as different animals in deciding how the law applies.

 

[crossref]

I suspect the law makers are wary of what happened when they first introduced replacements - just two who could only replace injured players. Very quickly players developed the sort of injury you cannot measure objectively - "my back hurts".

Rolling Subs allow a player to come back on after he has shaken off a minor injury. I suspect your relaxation would see a crop of minor "injuries" in the front rows to put FR players effectively outside the restriction on the number of interchanges. At present it is up to the coach to manage things sensibly. Let's see how it goes.

yes,

I wonder if they are not solving problems that aren't really there.
In age group games we have a limited squad - 22 - but other than that it's a free for all. Everyone can come and go, no restrictions except that an injured player cannot return (but then precious few are ever injured anyway).

so what happens in practice? do we get a complete anarchic free for all, with players coming and going willy nilly?

actually no. It all just works fine. Coaches start with 15. They make subs only when needed. players who leave the pitch rarely come back on (barring the clearly temporary injuries like blood) except in an emergency and it all works fine.

we never have uncontested scrums while fit STE players watch on the touchline

 

[Davet]

Dixie -

I understand your point.

Crux comes, for example, with say a situation where 1 is subbed off and 16 comes on; then 2 is subbed off and 17 comes on - so two FR subs which is the maximum. If 3 then picked up an injury would we let 1 come back on. In the reading you suggest then we would not, since you are conflating substitutions and replacements.

But as we know it is perfectly normal for all three FR players to be changed druing the course of a game.

 

[OB..]

crossref - Bloodgate occurred in a professional game, not age group rugby. So did misuse of the replacements (which were initially limited to internationals).

 

[crossref]

crossref - Bloodgate occurred in a professional game, not age group rugby. So did misuse of the replacements (which were initially limited to internationals).

yes but that's slightly my point, the rules have become ever more complex that there is ever more reason to break them.

in rolling subs there's no need to fake a blood, and the concept of 'misusing' a replacement ceases to exist.
people can just come and go

'but that would be terrible' think the IRB, 'players would be coming on and off the pitch all the time, we would have chaos the world would end, it would be rugby but not as we know it'

but perhaps, actually, if they tried it it things wouldn't be that different. where rugby is played with rolling subs it's not so very different -
except more honest
- we don't have to pretend to be injured
- we don't have to pretend to be not injured.
- We have no incentive to fake a blood
- we have less incentive to hide a blood
- we don't have to attempt 'run-off' a painful muscle strain lest we use up an interchange.
etc etc

too many rules can actually create rule-breakers .

I welcome the interchange system in RFU-Land as a step in right direction.

 

[OB..]

in rolling subs there's no need to fake a blood, and the concept of 'misusing' a replacement ceases to exist.
people can just come and go

But only 12 times (or whatever for the competition). Interchanges are not unlimited. You might want to argue that they should be (it works in the NFL. but even there they have limits on numbers in the match day squad), but it is not the system being trialled.

The problem at the moment is that if Rolling Substitutions are retained after the trials, it will be necessary to make various other changes in the laws. Until then we are being left to guess what to do when conflicts arise.

I welcome the interchange system in RFU-Land as a step in right direction.

Yes, but I do not want to go the NFL or NHL route.

 

[Taff]

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.

I reckon 3.4.

3.4 PLAYERS NOMINATED AS SUBSTITUTES

I know it also says

For other matches, the Union with jurisdiction over the match decides how many replacements/substitutes may be nominated to a maximum of seven ....

but I reckoned that was because all 7 players on the bench could be used as replacements or substitutes ie injury or tactical.

... 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.

I assumed they'd always made a distinction.

DEFINITIONS
Replacement. A player who replaces an injured team-mate.
Substitute. A player who replaces a team-mate for tactical reasons.

3.12 SUBSTITUTED PLAYERS REJOINING THE MATCH

... In age group games we have a limited squad - 22 - but other than that it's a free for all. Everyone can come and go, no restrictions except that an injured player cannot return (but then precious few are ever injured anyway). so what happens in practice? do we get a complete anarchic free for all, with players coming and going willy nilly? actually no. It all just works fine.

The man's got a point you know. Plus, one advantage would be that Senior and U19 law would be consistent.

 

[Dixie]

But as we know it is perfectly normal for all three FR players to be changed druing the course of a game.

I wasn't aware that was normal except in recent Aussie games - but I haven't been watching out for it. I will do from now on.

 

[OB..]

At one time London Irish would replace all three at once. They were told to stop as it was illegal, so they would replace two and hey presto! shortly afterwards the third one would get injured.

 

[Robert Burns]

Gents,

I have been contacted by a person, who wishes to remain nameless, but who has performed the duties of No.4/5 in a professional environment numerous times.

They would like it stated that:

Replacements are NOT limited.
You may substitute up to 2 front rowers and up to 5 other players. This is plain Law. The Law has already defined the difference in the Definitions.

The commenter Dixie has gotten closest in his or her(sic) post.

When the IRB says that 3.12 allows the sub, what they meant is that 3.12 allowed Robinson to return as a replacement. Therefore Australia had not used up its 2 permitted front row substitutions.

When Dixie asks were there actually 5 substitutions left available (given only 2 players were substituted, the rest for injury) - the answer is YES. But they didn't have 5 bodies left, so it's a moot point!

When the IRB say the Australians had one substitution left, what they really meant was that Australia could still do one substitution (since they had one substitute left). Fainga'a could have come on tactically.

You can make a maximum of 9 "movements" under current Law with a bench of 7 not including blood and YC/RC provisions (ie 7 tactical subs, plus 2 front row injuries). The teams know this, the managers know this, and every 4/5 worth his salt knows this. It's actually bloody simple ... but as soon as Rolland conflated substitutions and injuries, everyone who does not know what they are talking about has weighed in and confused the matter.

As final evidence that what is going on is common practice consider these two scenarios:

1) A team does all 7 tactical subs, including one prop and one hooker. There is 10 mins to go. Not implausible. A prop gets injured. If replacements and substitutions were all covered by a total of 7, you could NOT replace this prop with one of your perfectly fit front rowers sitting there on the bench, because you'd already used your 2 front row movements. We all know that this is ludicrous and such a move would never be blocked. It's just nonsense. Of course the move would be allowed.

2) South Africa starts with 3 front rowers on the bench. They have used this tactic in many Tests and also SA teams (and the Waratahs at times), have done it in Super Rugby. If replacements and substitutions were all covered by a total of 7, you could NEVER EVER use one of the 3 players, because you are only allowed 2 front row subs. What a stupid tactic that would be! It's not though, because that's not what the Law is! There is usually 2 tactical subs, and then an injury (or "injury"!) and the third front rower is used.

The person also points out that davet also got very close with his understanding.

Does that help explain it?

 

[TigerCraig]

We have a pretty good system for Under 15 to 18 which works pretty well.

It is unlimited interchange, but with a difference.

You can only do your interchanges at the first break in play after the third and two third point of each half and at half time. So for Under 15 (30 minute halves) at roughly the 10th, 20th, HT, 40th and 50th minutes; for Under 16 to Under 18 (35 minute halves) at the 12th, 24th, HT, 47th and 59th minutes.

So, if a player goes off injured in the 5th minute you have a choice - replace him, and he can't go back on for the rest of the game; or play short until either he is up to returning or the next scheduled interchange point.

Was mainly introduced to stop the use of big aerobically unfit but explosive players (generally PI) as shock troops in short bursts.

 

[didds]

my head hurts.

rather than the base assumption that all coaches are always trying to cheat and bend the rules, maybe its just that some of the rules have become so ridiculously complex such that an elite team of 4 cannot implement them correctly/consistently as to mean some coaches just keep changing until told they can't do so?

The anonymous contributor contends - and fair enough - that "The teams know this, the managers know this, and every 4/5 worth his salt knows this. It's actually bloody simple". But the evidence of this thread and that team of 4 is that it is in fact anything but.

Not helped that august bodies such as the iRB and SArefs do not concur either!

didds

 

[crossref]

my head hurts.

rather than the base assumption that all coaches are always trying to cheat and bend the rules, maybe its just that some of the rules have become so ridiculously complex such that an elite team of 4 cannot implement them correctly/consistently as to mean some coaches just keep changing until told they can't do so?

The anonymous contributor contends - and fair enough - that "The teams know this, the managers know this, and every 4/5 worth his salt knows this. It's actually bloody simple". But the evidence of this thread and that team of 4 is that it is in fact anything but.

Not helped that august bodies such as the iRB and SArefs do not concur either!

didds

you are quite right, I agree.

 

[crossref]

Gents,

I have been contacted by a person, who wishes to remain nameless, but who has performed the duties of No.4/5 in a professional environment numerous times.

They would like it stated that:
The person also points out that davet also got very close with his understanding.

Does that help explain it?

frankly - no it didn't help explain it, any better than the IRB or SAREFs managed to explain it. Just declaring 'its bloody simple' doesn't make it so.

he says

You can make a maximum of 9 "movements" under current Law with a bench of 7 not including blood and YC/RC provisions (ie 7 tactical subs, plus 2 front row injuries). The teams know this, the managers know this, and every 4/5 worth his salt knows this

but we've had all this thread and, the commentary in the papers and other website, and the IRB press release, and the SArefs explanation and not one of them have mentioned this limit of nine movements. Are you SURE everyone knows that? Are you sure you are even right?

and why have we reached a state where a knowledgable person feels he can't explain the laws/rules on substitutes except under cover of anonymity ??

I know I joke about secret emails, but this really takes the biscuit. Your correspeondent seems to think that if he is caught explaining the rules to people he'll lose his job or something. Why is that?

it's ridiculous.

 

[Davet]

The person also points out that davet also got very close with his understanding.

Very kind, and thanks - though I am at a loss as to which little bit I may have got wrong.

You can make a maximum of 9 "movements" under current Law with a bench of 7 not including blood and YC/RC provisions (ie 7 tactical subs, plus 2 front row injuries).

I am very pleased that your correspondent got that spot on.

For clarity I would note that, the 7 tactical subs comprise 2 FR and 5 Others Players; The injury exception only applies to FR - so that you only have 2 previously subbed FR available to come back to cover for injury..... except (and this is unlikely in the elite game) if one of the "Other Players" who had been subbed previously was FR STE and could cover for a 3rd FR injury/blood/card. When you include Blood replacements generally then the the "movements" are theoretically unlimited.

 

[Taff]

Gents, I have been contacted by a person, who wishes to remain nameless, but who has performed the duties of No.4/5 in a professional environment numerous times.?

Can I suggest that this thread be "stickied" for a bit.

my head hurts. ... The anonymous contributor contends - and fair enough - that "The teams know this, the managers know this, and every 4/5 worth his salt knows this. It's actually bloody simple". But the evidence of this thread and that team of 4 is that it is in fact anything but.

It may be "bloody simple" if/when you understand it, but the fact is it isn't easy to understand, and the number of rulings / clarifications on the IRB site on Law 3 would tend to suggest it confuses the hell out of most people. In fact not only are there more clarifications on Law 3 than any other law, there are currently 18 clarifications on Law 3 - thats more than most of the other laws combined.

 

[Dixie]

You can make a maximum of 9 "movements" under current Law with a bench of 7 not including blood and YC/RC provisions (ie 7 tactical subs, plus 2 front row injuries).

I am very pleased that your correspondent got that spot on.

The statement from The Anonymous Man In The Know is only "spot on" if Law 3.5 (available FR's in a given squad) is taken as a maximum rather than a minimum. I can't recall whether we've discussed it in the past, but it would seem to run counter to the "common sense" view adopted by TAMITK, when he comments that no-one would allow uncontested scrums when, due to an injury, there was a fit STE FR replacement on the bench.

To illustrate, let's assume that SA fields its normal starting FR, its two normal FR replacements, but selects Schalk Brits at #6 for his destructive broken-field running. We all recognise Brits as an outstanding and world-class hooker in his own right. The subs/replacement activity plays out as follows:

1 off, 16 on: sub
2 off, 17 on: sub
3 off, 1 returns: injury
17 off, 2 returns: injury
6 off, 18 on: sub
10 off, 19 on: sub
11 off, 20 on: sub
12 off: 21 on: sub
13 off: 22 on: sub
16 off: injury. Coach wants to return #6 to the game. Do the officials allow it?

1) A team does all 7 tactical subs, including one prop and one hooker. There is 10 mins to go. Not implausible. A prop gets injured. If replacements and substitutions were all covered by a total of 7, you could NOT replace this prop with one of your perfectly fit front rowers sitting there on the bench, because you'd already used your 2 front row movements. We all know that this is ludicrous and such a move would never be blocked. It's just nonsense. Of course the move would be allowed.

Something similar happened in a Tigers game, when Steve Thompson, the then England hooker, had a slight neck injury and was played at flanker rather than hooker. When an FR was injured, the game went to uncontested scrums despite Thompson's presence, and there was outrage in some quarters that he wasn't considered an STE FR.

#So is it really "bloody simple" given that everyone knows this, but perhaps TAMITK got it a bit wrong nonetheless?