[Scrum] Uncontested scrums

[Marc Wakeham]

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.

You are far to enlightened!

Old ref I knew had a situation where he delcared the pitch unplayable both coaches said it was playable. The coaches were adament he start the game. He said If you really want to play, I will blow the whistle to start the game and then I will blow again and abandon the match. Your players will have warmed up changed, applied bandages etc for no reason. "Your call guys!". The coaches backed down.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

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

Not me.

I'd apply the same logic as we are, by the Welsh Rugby Union, told to regarding general terms about starting the match:

REF says playable either side says no. Game does not start.

Either or both sides say playable and ref says no. Game does not start.

Both sides AND ref say playable. GAME ON.

Same aplies to the scrum. IF either side wants to go uncontested OR the ref wants to then it is uncontested. End of story. If a coach or player wants t oact as a spoilt brat. Good luck to them! MY conscience is clear.

 

[Balones]

Not me.

I'd apply the same logic as we are, by the Welsh Rugby Union, told to regarding general terms about starting the match:

REF says playable either side says no. Game does not start.

Either or both sides say playable and ref says no. Game does not start.

Both sides AND ref say playable. GAME ON.

Same aplies to the scrum. IF either side wants to go uncontested OR the ref wants to then it is uncontested. End of story. If a coach or player wants t oact as a spoilt brat. Good luck to them! MY conscience is clear.

Haven’t checked in regulations but the guidance you outline applies to all levels in England as well and it is certainly in my society documentation and that of the Division (Group in old parlance.) If a side asks to go uncontested then the matter is referred to the competition organisers to sort out and usually ask the referee for their opinion as to the validity. If the ref says he/she wants uncontested then it goes uncontested. The sides can appeal to the competition organisers after the game but to walk off will not do them any good. It has been known for a game to be replayed because of an appeal but the referee has never been blamed, or found fault with, for making the decision.

 

[Balones]

Weather conditions are considered under regulation 13.6.6 and 13.6.7. Once started the referee has ‘absolute discretion’.

 

[Dickie E]

just a thought. Rather than go uncontested, could the ref impose U19 restrictions (ie 1.5 metre push)?

 

[didds]

just a thought. Rather than go uncontested, could the ref impose U19 restrictions (ie 1.5 metre push)?

The OP _was_ an U19 game...

didds

 

[Marc Wakeham]

just a thought. Rather than go uncontested, could the ref impose U19 restrictions (ie 1.5 metre push)?

In senior rugby, I would say no. However, you can play a match with U19 scrum laws: IF the relevant Union has sanctioned it (Law 19.39). That apart it is full law (with uncontested being avaiable under those laws)

 

[Dickie E]

In senior rugby, I would say no. However, you can play a match with U19 scrum laws: IF the relevant Union has sanctioned it (Law 19.39). That apart it is full law (with uncontested being avaiable under those laws)

its a pity. Goldilocks scrums ... full scrums too dangerous, uncontested too safe. U19 ... just right.

 

[didds]

its a pity. Goldilocks scrums ... full scrums too dangerous, uncontested too safe. U19 ... just right.

Then again, from the OP

"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 ."

So maybe not...

didds

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I think by saying: "Guys I don't think you're safe scrummaging. We will go to an U19 push" might be leaving the door open for an action against you later.

 

[thepercy]

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.

Let me see if I understand your position. You are a coach, and your team is dominant in scrums, then safety of players becomes an issue (at least for the referee) and the referee orders uncontested scrums. You then remove your team from the field and "take your ball and go home". What is your argument to the competition committee that your team should receive the points for a win? Or are you so upset that you can't keep dominating scrums in dangerous conditions, that you are willing to take no win points? You can't win the match without your dominant scrum? Now the players don't get the rest of their match, and the subs might not get any playing time. Who does this help other than your ego?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Let me see if I understand your position. You are a coach, and your team is dominant in scrums, then safety of players becomes an issue (at least for the referee) and the referee orders uncontested scrums. You then remove your team from the field and "take your ball and go home". What is your argument to the competition committee that your team should receive the points for a win? Or are you so upset that you can't keep dominating scrums in dangerous conditions, that you are willing to take no win points? You can't win the match without your dominant scrum? Now the players don't get the rest of their match, and the subs might not get any playing time. Who does this help other than your ego?

Don't forget thathis approach implies little or no consideration for his OWN players' welfare! When a scrum collapses ANY forward(s) from either or both teams could be the one(S) that break(s)s their neck(s).


All to satify his desire to win the willy waving competition!

 

[Shelflife]

If we take it as a given that player safety is paramount I would still be loathe to go uncontested with scrums as a result of pitch conditions.

Either the pitch is safe to play on or its not. To go uncontested may unduly reward a team with a weaker scrum to the point of changing the outcome of the game.

If the pitch is so bad that its not safe to scrum on it and its a league or cup game (as opposed to a friendly or unimportant game ie dead rubber ) then I would call it off .

Ive played and reffed on some terrible pitches , none were so bad as to result in uncontested scrums.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

For a League or Cup game my "playable criteria" will be higher than for a friendly. However if the conditions worsened during the game, I would speak the the players and make it clear that if problems developed then UC scrums would be an option. OF course the wise side would find an objection to the pitch as soon as it looked like the scrums were becoming an issue.

 

[Zebra1922]

If we take it as a given that player safety is paramount I would still be loathe to go uncontested with scrums as a result of pitch conditions.

Either the pitch is safe to play on or its not. To go uncontested may unduly reward a team with a weaker scrum to the point of changing the outcome of the game.

If the pitch is so bad that its not safe to scrum on it and its a league or cup game (as opposed to a friendly or unimportant game ie dead rubber ) then I would call it off .

Ive played and reffed on some terrible pitches , none were so bad as to result in uncontested scrums.

I diasgree here, I have seen pitches that are safe to play overall, but due to sloppiness or issues with turf etc. Are unsafe for contested scrummaging. It’s a unique phase of the game with specific safety concerns. Yes if I was going uncontested manly due to the state of the pitch I would be thinking hard about whether the pitch is suitable overall, but I can and have been in situations where it is safe to play but Unsafe to scrummage, more so if one team is particularly dominant, it is hard to keep your feet in a retreating scrum on a goood pitch, next to impossible on a slippy pitch

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Once a scrum get a shove on stopping it is not easy. On a wearing pitch that becomes virtually impossible. So yes there are particular issues that the scrum faces compared to other facets of the game.

 

[Blindside]

Let me see if I understand your position. You are a coach, and your team is dominant in scrums, then safety of players becomes an issue (at least for the referee) and the referee orders uncontested scrums. You then remove your team from the field and "take your ball and go home". What is your argument to the competition committee that your team should receive the points for a win? Or are you so upset that you can't keep dominating scrums in dangerous conditions, that you are willing to take no win points? You can't win the match without your dominant scrum? Now the players don't get the rest of their match, and the subs might not get any playing time. Who does this help other than your ego?

Sorry have been unable to reply to your question for a few reasons (i haven't been to Jail:smile. In my opinion if in the opinion of the ref it is unsafe to scrummage then IN REALITY the only way that game could continue was with the consent of both sides. The motives of either side are irrelevant its the reality of the situation. If a referee said its unsafe to scrummage and as a coach i didn't want to continue with the match there is no way that match will proceed. We are arguing hypothetical situations here and within that scenerio the fact that it was considered unsafe for scrummage would make a situation were the referee force the game to go ahead and i refused to play it, i would not fear sanction. In reality this situation is extremely unlikely anyway. Ive coached for 25 years and never come across it. Ive been involved in numerous games where the ref has indicated he thinks its just about playable and the opposing team has said, "i dont think so, i want it noted i think its dangerous and the responsibility is on you if anyone is hurt! and except for one occasion where it was clearly playable the referee has always said off. Therefore im dealing in realities as i see them.

To answer the Welsh ref who asked me what was the highest level i had coached.... it is head coach in the Welsh Championship. Not a dizzy height but not a dark hole either .

 

[crossref]

S
it. Ive been involved in numerous games where the ref has indicated he thinks its just about playable and the opposing team has said, "i dont think so, i want it noted i think its dangerous and the responsibility is on you if anyone is hurt!

.

That coach has a made a declaration that he thinks the pitch is unsafe ... but he is going to let his team play on it anyway ?
Has very firmly shouldered a great deal of legal liability on himself ! He sent his team to play on a pitch he declared to be unsafe ??

If a coach declares out loud that a pitch is unsafe, he must not then allow his team to play on it.

If a referee declares out loud that a pitch is unsafe he must not then allow the game to go ahead.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Sorry have been unable to reply to your question for a few reasons (i haven't been to Jail:smile. In my opinion if in the opinion of the ref it is unsafe to scrummage then IN REALITY the only way that game could continue was with the consent of both sides. The motives of either side are irrelevant its the reality of the situation. If a referee said its unsafe to scrummage and as a coach i didn't want to continue with the match there is no way that match will proceed. We are arguing hypothetical situations here and within that scenerio the fact that it was considered unsafe for scrummage would make a situation were the referee force the game to go ahead and i refused to play it, i would not fear sanction. In reality this situation is extremely unlikely anyway. Ive coached for 25 years and never come across it. Ive been involved in numerous games where the ref has indicated he thinks its just about playable and the opposing team has said, "i dont think so, i want it noted i think its dangerous and the responsibility is on you if anyone is hurt! and except for one occasion where it was clearly playable the referee has always said off. Therefore im dealing in realities as i see them.

To answer the Welsh ref who asked me what was the highest level i had coached.... it is head coach in the Welsh Championship. Not a dizzy height but not a dark hole either .

The ref can't force the game to go ahead. The coach has the right to consider the pitch unplayable at anytime. I quoted the guden ce that, coachin in the Welsh Championship, you eould be fully aware of (ie Ref says no then the game does not continue / go ahead. EITHER team says no then it does not go ahead / continue).

If I said to you: "I don't think scrums are safe." and you said: "It's either full or we go off.", I would note your reply in my report. As there is a clear inference that you consider the pitch safe to scrum on but not if no scrums. revealing your "desire" and not your assessment of the pitch.

Next time you were coaching t a game I was reffing I'm make the UC call for different reasoning than the pitch and they you would be simply refusing to accept the referee's decisions.

 

[Taff]

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.

Well spotted sir. :clap:

I've often wondered what I would do if scrums became a real issue so it's good to know the law book allows this.