PDA

View Full Version : [Scrum] Number of front row subs



ChrisR
16-11-16, 13:11
3.4 Players nominated as substitutes
(d) A team can substitute up to two front row players (subject to Law 3.5 (f) and (g) when it
may be three) and up to five other players.


I don't read posts on these kind of issues (maybe I should) but the wording struck me as odd. I'm sure that WR doesn't intend the maximum number of front row subs to be limited.

My 2016 copy of the Laws doesn't have 3.5 (f) or (g).

Taff
16-11-16, 13:11
... I'm sure that WR doesn't intend the maximum number of front row subs to be limited.
3.4 Players nominated as substitutes
(d) A team can substitute up to two front row players (subject to Law 3.5 (f) and (g) when it may be three) and up to five other players.
"Up to" sets a maximum surely


... My 2016 copy of the Laws doesn't have 3.5 (f) or (g).
Although 3.4 mentions 3.5(f) and (g) they don't exist anymore on the WR website either. That 12 yr old needs a talking to.:biggrin:

SimonSmith
16-11-16, 14:11
Does the distinction between "substitute" and "replacement" matter at all here?

I think it might.

chbg
16-11-16, 19:11
Okay, so they have amended 3.5 by substantial simplification and did not do a full review to see what other Laws referred to the deleted paragraphs. No big deal. 3.5(b) is now the exception to 3.4(d). However 3.4(d) does not make any sense (a maxmum of 7 substitutes) when other paragraphs allow a maximum of 8 substitutes (3.4(b), 3.4(c), 3.5(b)) in circumstances. You can ignore 3.4(d), as most competition regulations will take precedence. Read those.

OB..
16-11-16, 19:11
3.5 (f) and (g) gave authority to a "Union having jurisdiction" to make its own regulations on certain matters. I presume they no longer have that, so the reference can safely be ignored (and indeed should have been removed).

chbg
17-11-16, 00:11
3.5 (f) and (g) gave authority to a "Union having jurisdiction" to make its own regulations on certain matters. I presume they no longer have that, so the reference can safely be ignored (and indeed should have been removed).

3.4(b) (as before) and 3.5(b) provide that authority now.