[Scrum] Uncontested scrums

[vimpe22]

A match is payed under wet and soggy underfoot conditions . The ground is also uneven .

This is an under 19 game .

Three minutes into the first half and second scrum takes place and the front row collapses and a layer has a bad injury.The first scrum too was not steady .

Considering the bad underfoot conditions referee declares uncontested scrums .

He opined that this is the interest of player safety . Declared squad is w 25 as per tournament rules . Thee were subs available

Is the declaration of uncontested scrums by referee correct.

 

[Dickie E]

Absolutely. Player safety paramount. You can't force a team to make a sub to try to solve the issue.

Normally if scrums are a mess (eg dominant scrum) I'll ask players to depower. If they refuse, I'll comfortably go uncontested.

I always find it sobering to consider what I would say if I was in the box in the coroner's court.

 

[SimonSmith]

Without knowing more information, I wouldn't second guess the referee. He's a lot closer to it than I am.

 

[Blindside]

I think it would have to be done with the agreement of both captains, if one or both refuse then the game should be abandoned as it is not safe to play. You cannot change probable outcomes by restructuring a game due to weather, without both sides agreeing.

 

[crossref]

I think it would have to be done with the agreement of both captains, if one or both refuse then the game should be abandoned as it is not safe to play. You cannot change probable outcomes by restructuring a game due to weather, without both sides agreeing.

If they played on then they accepted it
If a team didn't accept it they could stop playing

 

[Dickie E]

I think it would have to be done with the agreement of both captains, if one or both refuse then the game should be abandoned as it is not safe to play. You cannot change probable outcomes by restructuring a game due to weather, without both sides agreeing.

I must say it would never occur to me to ask the teams for permission to go uncontested

 

[damo]

I think it would have to be done with the agreement of both captains, if one or both refuse then the game should be abandoned as it is not safe to play. You cannot change probable outcomes by restructuring a game due to weather, without both sides agreeing.

I don't agree with that at all. If the conditions mean that the game is unsafe to be played with contested scrums, that is a call for the ref to make. Players have to get on with what the ref says.

Now the ref might be wrong in making his determination that scrums are unsafe, but that is another issue.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

A refere may order uncontested scrums at any time. He call is not open to discussion. "Referee is sole judge of fact" and all that.

Law justification?

Well I'd go for:

[LAWS]3.13
Scrums will become uncontested if either team cannot field a suitably trained front row
or
if the referee so orders[/LAWS]

I think that refutes the "consent" argument.

 

[Blindside]

With my coaches head on, if I've got a dominant scrum in an important game and due to weather conditions the referee says we are going uncontested due to safety concerns, I could/would take my team off. A game would never start where scrums were unsafe without consent and in reality they would not continue without consent. I would not worry about defending that decision or expect sanction. I could argue my case on many levels. The referee may "so order" whatever he wants, he only gets it if the game continues, for that he would in effect need consent.

 

[OB..]

With my coaches head on, if I've got a dominant scrum in an important game and due to weather conditions the referee says we are going uncontested due to safety concerns, I could/would take my team off. A game would never start where scrums were unsafe without consent and in reality they would not continue without consent. I would not worry about defending that decision or expect sanction. I could argue my case on many levels. The referee may "so order" whatever he wants, he only gets it if the game continues, for that he would in effect need consent.

If one scrum is too dominant, the standard advice is for the refere to ask them to "dominate but not destroy". If they can't manage that and the referee judges the situation to be unsafe, he is expected to go to uncontested scrums. Safety is the referee's call. If the coach chooses to take his team off, that is his prerogative, but I don't see that it does his team much good.

 

[colesy]

With my coaches head on, if I've got a dominant scrum in an important game and due to weather conditions the referee says we are going uncontested due to safety concerns, I could/would take my team off. A game would never start where scrums were unsafe without consent and in reality they would not continue without consent. I would not worry about defending that decision or expect sanction. I could argue my case on many levels. The referee may "so order" whatever he wants, he only gets it if the game continues, for that he would in effect need consent.

With my Society head on, I would back my referee 100% and would expect him or her to have managed the situation as per OB’s advice. With my CB head on, I would expect the result to be the same. I might sympathise with you but your team would likely be expelled from the competition if it was a cup match with further sanction for next year’s competition. You and your club would also risk a 5.12 disciplinary, particularly if it was an ECC match rather than a merit table.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

With my coaches head on, if I've got a dominant scrum in an important game and due to weather conditions the referee says we are going uncontested due to safety concerns, I could/would take my team off. A game would never start where scrums were unsafe without consent and in reality they would not continue without consent. I would not worry about defending that decision or expect sanction. I could argue my case on many levels. The referee may "so order" whatever he wants, he only gets it if the game continues, for that he would in effect need consent.

And With my referee's hat on I will submit a report that you refused to play on under the laws of the game. yOu can argue all you like. You are wrong in law!

What would you do if you have the dominant scrum and the opposition declare a player injured and "we have to go uncontested"? Will you take your ball home and refuse to play?

Sorry, If you don't like the laws go and play another game.

 

[Rich_NL]

With my coaches head on, if I've got a dominant scrum in an important game and due to weather conditions the referee says we are going uncontested due to safety concerns, I could/would take my team off.

Because if you can't endanger the players to keep your advantage, no-one's going to play. Got it.

 

[SimonSmith]

With my coaches head on, if I've got a dominant scrum in an important game and due to weather conditions the referee says we are going uncontested due to safety concerns, I could/would take my team off. A game would never start where scrums were unsafe without consent and in reality they would not continue without consent. I would not worry about defending that decision or expect sanction. I could argue my case on many levels. The referee may "so order" whatever he wants, he only gets it if the game continues, for that he would in effect need consent.

Pitches deteriorate. What seemed great prior to kick off can after a couple of scrums not be.
Among stiff competition, this could be the single worst post I've seen from a referee.

 

[Blindside]

And With my referee's hat on I will submit a report that you refused to play on under the laws of the game. yOu can argue all you like. You are wrong in law!

What would you do if you have the dominant scrum and the opposition declare a player injured and "we have to go uncontested"? Will you take your ball home and refuse to play?

Sorry, If you don't like the laws go and play another game.

The point im making is that it would never ever happen at a decent level and probably never has. If it a lower level you decided it was unsafe to have scrims due to the state of the pitch and as a coach I decided it was then unfit to play, to ruck and to have lineouts and to tackle, the fact you had dreamed it unfit to scrummage after 3 minutes would mean you would look dafter than me for suggesting them game continued, against the wishes of on of the teams regards safety. You are a referee not God. There are clearly defined rules for other situations. I wouldn't give a toss about the report. There would be a hearing and we would both have to justify our stance. Clear cut....... I think not. That is why in these circumstances it would have to be done with the cooperation of both teams or not at all.

 

[tewdric]

What level do you coach at aamoi?

 

[Dickie E]

That is why in these circumstances it would have to be done with the cooperation of both teams or not at all.

Well, if both teams said that they wanted to continue with contested scrums, that would give me pause for thought.

 

[crossref]

As a referee if you actually declare out loud that in your view the pitch is unsafe for whatever reason you absolutely must NOT let yourself be persuaded to allow play to continue .. if there is a subsequent injury you have condemned yourself out of your own mouth. You thought the pitch was unsafe (you said so) but you allowed play to continue

The dialogue in this sort of situation has to be approached very carefully. Think carefully about what you say.

 

[Arabcheif]

But you'd be happy to continue with contested scrums. You don't really seem to be that bothered about the pitch being unsafe provided you keep your major advantage??? Your argument that you feel the conditions would be unsafe to keep playing seems to be falling apart.

Conditions don't have to be unsafe to play, but can be unsafe to have contested scrums. As a ref I wouldn't go uncontested unless I had too. We all want a good game, player, coaches and refs alike. But yeah, player safety needs to come first. At my level (that I play at), we all have jobs to go to on Monday.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

The point im making is that it would never ever happen at a decent level and probably never has. If it a lower level you decided it was unsafe to have scrims due to the state of the pitch and as a coach I decided it was then unfit to play, to ruck and to have lineouts and to tackle, the fact you had dreamed it unfit to scrummage after 3 minutes would mean you would look dafter than me for suggesting them game continued, against the wishes of on of the teams regards safety. You are a referee not God. There are clearly defined rules for other situations. I wouldn't give a toss about the report. There would be a hearing and we would both have to justify our stance. Clear cut....... I think not. That is why in these circumstances it would have to be done with the cooperation of both teams or not at all.

If you felt, or indeed the referee felt, that the pitch had become unfit to play (not specifically scrummage). The gme can and should be abandoned. HOWEVER, if you can a cross like a school boy who because he can't play with his favorite toy wanted to spoil it for the rest of his class, Then in my report I would very clearly state that the coach had no problems with the pitch until I call uncontested for safety issues. THe organisers can then draw their own coclusion as to your petulism. A pitch vertainly can be safe to play but not scrummage on.

Incidentally I have called uncontested scrums on a perfect pitch where bot hsides THP was not , in my opinion abole to scrummage safely. I made the call after 4 attempts at the first scrum I gave both sides the choice to cahnge props as I felt they were not STE or go unconsteded. The other forwards did not have any issue with my stopping them collapse. None of the coaches ran "crying to teacher" either!

NO: The ref is not God. He is however, to ensure player safety and equity before all else. Certainly not to pander to you.