[Law] Whats new 2016

[Rich_NL]

That should mean the officials verifying both the foul play and the injury.

Would you be confident in denying a team medic's call for a PSCA?

BFG - If you (/ARs) haven't called foul play, it's not the medic's job to declare it. If you didn't see it, you can't allow the substitution for it.

 

[DocY]

Would you be confident in denying a team medic's call for a PSCA?

Yep. That's the society's official line: if you suspect there might be concussion, they're not carrying on. Generally at this level they won't have anyone properly qualified to assess a concussion.

 

[crossref]

Yep. That's the society's official line: if you suspect there might be concussion, they're not carrying on. Generally at this level they won't have anyone properly qualified to assess a concussion.

I think that Rich meant the other way round - they take him of for (what you think is) an unnecessary PSCA, do this mean that it therefore counts as substitution for injury? Or can the ref declare it tactical.

Seems to me that if they declare it's a PSCA then it counts as an injury

 

[crossref]

"When the ball has been at the number eight’s feet in a stationary scrum for 3-5 seconds, the referee will call “use it” and the attacking team must use the ball immediately "

So three seconds?

Or five seconds?

didds

This is what the Law actually says

[LAWS](d)
When a team has the ball at the number 8’s feet, and is trying to move forward but is not succeeding in doing so, the referee will call “use-it” once the ball has been at the number 8’s feet for a reasonable amount of time (3-5 seconds). The team must then use the ball immediately.
[/LAWS]

- Note there is no sanction given (grrr) so what, is it a scrum to the oppp?

- Note that they must use it 'immediately', so how long is immediately? Is it the same immediately as releasing in a tackle? or is it actually a little longer than that...

- Why not 5s to use it, same as the use it for a ruck ? Why introduce needless opportunities for confusion?

 

[DocY]

I think that Rich meant the other way round - they take him of for (what you think is) an unnecessary PSCA, do this mean that it therefore counts as substitution for injury? Or can the ref declare it tactical.

Seems to me that if they declare it's a PSCA then it counts as an injury

That makes more sense.

I'm struggling to see what difference this new changes makes to PSCAs though. Unless I missed a memo, the temporary replacement can become permanent even if they've already gone off, so would the new regulations change that?

 

[crossref]

That makes more sense.

I'm struggling to see what difference this new changes makes to PSCAs though. Unless I missed a memo, the temporary replacement can become permanent even if they've already gone off, so would the new regulations change that?

Under the Law

[LAWS]If a player is substituted, that player may only return to play when replacing:

an injured front row player in accordance with Law 3.5
a player with a blood injury in accordance with Law 3.11
a player undertaking a Head Injury Assessment in accordance with Law 3.12
a player who has been injured as a result of foul play (as verified by the Match Officials)[/LAWS]

I agree it makes no difference

The press release today said something different. If the press relesse was correct then there would be a difference, but I think the person who wrote the press release hadn't read the Law.

 

[DocY]

- Note there is no sanction given (grrr) so what, is it a scrum to the oppp?

- Note that they must use it 'immediately', so how long is immediately? Is it the same immediately as releasing in a tackle? or is it actually a little longer than that...

- Why not 5s to use it, same as the use it for a ruck ? Why introduce needless opportunities for confusion?

Came up in a society meeting. We were told it's an opposition scrum, immediately means like a tackle so the scrum is less likely to need resetting.

 

[crossref]

makes sense

 

[Pegleg]

A player who is within minutes of being subbed cops a high tackle.

Team medics who are aware he is about to be subbed, report that he needs PSCA even thought in reality he does not.

He goes off and the sub comes on.

Player never returns, and that team has just gamed the system to get a free sub.

Surely does not have to have anything to do with a PSCA. Player's leg stamped injured so that he can't play on. There does not need to be either concussion or blood. "Free" replacement allowed. Clearly the ref / officials must have seen the foul play. The team can't "claim" it.

 

[crossref]

Surely does not have to have anything to do with a PSCA. Player's leg stamped injured so that he can't play on. There does not need to be either concussion or blood. "Free" replacement allowed. Clearly the ref / officials must have seen the foul play. The team can't "claim" it.

** NB ** while the press release says that a 'free' replacement is allowed the new 2016 Law doesn't actually say that (unless I have missed it somewhere)

(if that press release was wrong, this one's going to run and run....)

 

[TheBFG]

If medic claims injury after I've given a pk for foul play, I won't be arguing with them!

 

[Pegleg]

** NB ** while the press release says that a 'free' replacement is allowed the new 2016 Law doesn't actually say that (unless I have missed it somewhere)

(if that press release was wrong, this one's going to run and run....)

It is the equivilant of a Blood or PSCA replacement in that a previously replaced player may come back on. BUT my point is that there is no Concussion assessment.

 

[Pegleg]

If medic claims injury after I've given a pk for foul play, I won't be arguing with them!

Agreed

 

[Ian_Cook]

Surely does not have to have anything to do with a PSCA. Player's leg stamped injured so that he can't play on. There does not need to be either concussion or blood. "Free" replacement allowed. Clearly the ref / officials must have seen the foul play. The team can't "claim" it.

Pegleg, I'm just saying that there might be an opportunity for a team to game the system with this Law. My PSCA scenario was just one just an example of how it might be done.

Here is another.

The SH has been subbed off, and replaced by the back-up SH. Two minutes after coming on, the backup SH is injured and has to go off. The team has no SH now. At the next act of "personal" foul play, if the victim is a back, be could claim he cannot continue. This would allow the team to bring the starting SH back on when he otherwise would not be allowed back on.

Now, I cannot see this sort of thing happening very often, but in an important match at elite level, I have no doubt that a coach might try it on. After all this is just an extension of what happened in "bloodgate"; Quins used the blood replacement exception and faked a blood injury to bring on a previously subbed player, the goal-kicker IIRC. Who saw "bloodgate" coming?

 

[Pegleg]

Of course it may. It can now with PSCA and as you point out with blood replacements. Using it in conection with a non PSCA injury is, a best going to muddy the waters. The medics can claim a PSCA now.

Sides will always try and abuse the laws. But the principle is right. Why should the offender potentially get the oppo's star off the park whilst the offender may get away with it because the ref does not see it well enough to identify him.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Of course it may. It can now with PSCA and as you point out with blood replacements. Using it in conection with a non PSCA injury is, a best going to muddy the waters. The medics can claim a PSCA now.

Sides will always try and abuse the laws. But the principle is right. Why should the offender potentially get the oppo's star off the park whilst the offender may get away with it because the ref does not see it well enough to identify him.

Agree, which is why I like the idea, but it needs to be monitored for abuse.

 

[Pegleg]

As do all the laws.

 

[Christy]

At under 19s
Unless your local regions dictate other wise.
Any player who has been injured ( not by means of fowl play )
Can be replaced by an already substituted player.

On a few occasions i have seen teams , trying to use this as a tactic ,,only for ref not to allow same replacement not go ahead . ( unless front row )

I guess we will all get a message from our ref societys .
And hopefully all deal with it in a similar manner .

Its when clubs play in different provinces / districts .
Is where you may find different interpertrations .
Because they will be reffed by refs from those districts.

It will be a very interesting start to new season .

Also society members , share info amongst their own refs ,of what clubs try what on .

 

[Staffs_Ref]

At under 19s

Any player who has been injured ( not by means of fowl play )

They shouldn't be allowing chickens onto the field of play in the first place! :biggrin:

 

[OB..]

They shouldn't be allowing chickens onto the field of play in the first place! :biggrin:

At Chris White's first international in Paris he was alerted by his AR: "Chris, there's a cockerel on the pitch, but don't worry - he's on-side at the moment."