What constitutes a suitable FR player?

[Andy P]

The accident at Lymm recently highlights the potential injuries that can happen to players on the pitch. With that in mind is the position in Senior rugby the same as junior rugby in that the player should have had appropriate front row training prior to a game.

I was in a discussuon at the weekend and an ex prop was of the opinion that in senior rugby anyone who wants to play front row can just turn up and play as it's their choice. so in a game if there was a FR injury and that team wanted to continue with contested scrums and the fullback offers to play, as a referee would you be obliged to ask whether they were trained in the dark arts or not.

 

[crossref]

I think you have to beleive what people say - if the full back tells you, straight-faced, that he is suitably trained and experienced then you believe him (and watch the scrum carefully, and go uncontested at any sign of trouble)

if he tells you that he played hooker once in a school game in 2001, ha had no experience or training since then, but he's definitely up for another go, and all the risk is on his head, don't worry, then he's not STE and can't play in front row.

 

[Dixie]

Andy P, the law requires that an adult FR in a senior game be suitably trained and experienced.

[LAWS]3.5(b) (b) Each player in the front row and any potential replacement(s) must be suitably trained and experienced[/LAWS]

A referee cannot assess this before the match. It is for the clubs to make the assessment, as they know the player's strengths & weaknesses, they know what training he's been given and they know the level and challenge of the match. If there's a disaster and the player was not STE, then his club gets it in the neck. If Marsh refuses to pay out under the insurance, the club is the one that has failed in its duty of care. The referee has such a duty, but no way early doors to exercise it in this context.

However, if a ref perceives during a game that the player is not clearly not STE, but fails to move to uncontested scrums, then he may well have also failed in his duty of care to the player - so if the club doesn't have sufficient assets to meet the player's claim for damages, the referee's house and car may be brought into the equation.

 

[Andy P]

Thanks, I think I can confidently re-start that weekend discussion.

 

[OB..]

The Vowles case cost the WRU insurers a lot of money.

Llanharan 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] XV were playing Tondu 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] XV at Llanharan in a local derby. Richard Vowles was the Llanharan hooker. Early in the game the Llanharan loosehead prop, Gavin Marsh, dislocated his shoulder, and the replacement was Chris Jones, a 1[SUP]st[/SUP] XV back row player who had played a couple of times in the front row before. The referee, David Evans, a practising solicitor, was himself an ex-forward who had played for Sale. He asked the Llanharan captain if he wanted uncontested scrums, and the offer was declined.

Subsequently during the game there were many collapsed scrums. Vowles claimed there were 55, but this seems improbably high. The Tondu hooker, Gareth Davies, said the scrums "descended into a joke" after the introduction of Mr Jones and added, "I could twist him and bring him down low. He clearly did not have any experience as a prop and we said to the ref we should have unopposed scrums." Vowles himself said "Chris Jones was thinner than the average prop so I could not bind properly. We were miles apart. His timing was wrong going down which meant I was taking the weight of the opposing hooker and props." It was also claimed that the referee did not use the usual “Crouch and hold. Engage” procedure for setting a scrum. Peter Murphy QC, acting for Mr Vowles, said "Chris Jones did his best but he did not have the special skills required and that should have been manifestly apparent to the ref."

Llanharan were winning 3-0 in injury time, and Tondu were attempting a pushover try. The attempt led to repeated collapsed scrums. The final one failed to engage properly, and when they separated, Vowles fell to the ground in agony.

The Llanharan 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] XV coach, former Bridgend and Maesteg back row forward Derrick Brown, said he had not thought the players were in danger. There were more collapsed scrums than normal, but he put that down to the poor conditions with a very slippery pitch. He admitted he had no technical knowledge of front row play.

Mr Vowles succeeded in his claim against the WRU and Mr Evans; he failed in his claim against the captain and coach of Llanharan RFC. This ruling was subsequently confirmed in the Court of Appeal, who refused leave to appeal further to the House of Lords.

I don't really see why the sole responsibility rested on the referee.

 

[Davet]

It is the clubs responsibilty to ensure that FR players are STE.

But I strongly advise refs tyo ask the question as a matter of course when doing the FR briefing:

"Gents, first thing, is this everyone who will play FR for you today? OK, Good (or - can you fetch him please) - and is everybody STE playing FR? Good. I just want to run through the scrum engage process...."

If you are told a player who will be FR replacement but hasn't arrived yet then brief him separately if necesarry - in the same way you did the communal one.

I suggest you have a basic script and just follow that to ensure you say everything you need to and do it consistently.