PDA

View Full Version : Italy v France



Sinkers
05-02-07, 00:02
All three Italy front row allowed to be replaced - comments please

OB..
05-02-07, 01:02
Law 3.4 [...] A team can substitute up to two front row players and up to five other players.

It would still appear to be illegal.

I remember London Irish used to do this, and were told to stop. So they substituted two, and the third got injured shortly afterwards. What a coincidence!

didds
05-02-07, 11:02
any oidea why only 2 FR subs permitted?

didds

OB..
05-02-07, 11:02
No, none at all.

Personally I think we have gone too far with subs. My proposal would be to allow 7 on the bench for internationals, but only allow 2, maybe 3, to be used. That way the coach would have to keep them in reserve for injuries. If he gambled by using them as subs, then it would be his own fault if a subsequent injury made his team play short.

Robert Burns
05-02-07, 12:02
You mean like they do in Football?

One of the things I agree with too.

Dixie
05-02-07, 14:02
If anyone were interested in apportioning blame for the egregious FR replacements, where should that person look first? Presumably the fourth official? Does Mr Barnes have a case to answer, as it must have been obvious to him that the FR that finished the match was entirely different from the one that started? Rotten luck to have that happen in your debut 6N match.

Davet
05-02-07, 14:02
I noted this at the time; but assumed that with 4th officials and proper paperwork then it must be OK - and that maybe there was a sepcial regulation for Internationals or summink.

If not then there should be fireworks heading from O'Brien's direction - with flashing nuclear explosions in the near future.

FlipFlop
05-02-07, 16:02
If not then there should be fireworks heading from O'Brien's direction - with flashing nuclear explosions in the near future.

I don't think that this will be high on his agenda, given all the other mistakes over the weekend - TJ's and TMO's taking most the heat.

And all the various crouch, touch, pause, engage sequences we heard.

Let's await the next email :D

Sinkers
05-02-07, 20:02
he also penalise dominici (spelling?) for not rolling away when he was in fact pinned under the player and the person at the bottom of the ruck.

His verbals of "no problem" was in fact white noise. He was perhaps forunate that the game was not technically a difficult game to referee or so it appeared.

OB..
05-02-07, 21:02
I thought his "no problem" was a response to comments from the players (which, of course, you could not hear).

Our principal guideline is "major limb movement". A player pinned at the bottom of a ruck can still be preventing release, even if he can't get out. (I don't recall the specific incident.)

Deeps
05-02-07, 22:02
... for not rolling away when he was in fact pinned under the player and the person at the bottom of the ruck.

I have no problem penalising a 'pinned' player if he is affecting the play. I expect to see an effort to move at the very least. He got there somehow in the first place, the fact that he is subsequently pinned is regrettable, however, if he is now preventing the opposition from playing the ball, that is contrary to the laws of the game.

ex-lucy
06-02-07, 09:02
oh yes, just cos a player is apparently pinned doesnt mean much to me.
why couldnt he have moved before getting pinned?
What were his hands doing?

Dixie
06-02-07, 09:02
These last two are interesting. As a centre, I always played to the spirit and the letter of the law (lost my Emoticons - imagine one of your choice here) - unlike all these Forward types. If I failed immediately to floor your oppo with a tackle, the next thing that would happen is a flanker adds 17 stone to the mix with considerable momentum. This usually does the trick, and the three of us end up on the floor, closely followed by three other flankers, at least two of whom will be driven on top of you by the second wave of arriving players. As an 11.5 stone centre, I now have 45 stone on top of me, and am struggling to draw breath. If the ref then pings me for failing to roll away, I feel aggrieved.

It is certainly the ref's easist option - but is it Equitable? Does it not put Law (or indeed referee's self-interest) above Equity?

OB..
06-02-07, 09:02
The question is simply: what is the pinned player doing?

(1) making every effort not to prevent release
Play on or whistle for a scrum.

(3) inadvertently preventing release
Scrum.

(2) deliberately preventing release
Penalty

(Always provided he got in that position legally.)

ex-lucy
06-02-07, 10:02
Ob's got it right. Not bad for a non ref!
If your scenario happened, Dixie, and i saw you inadvertently pinned with no hands near the ball slowing it then play on/ see what happens.
If i saw your hands near the ball so slowing its release down or holding the tackler down .. advantage.. but short .. pen to oppo.

ex-lucy
06-02-07, 18:02
Rob Debney's perf:
1. pen on 11 mins. Scrum offence, white thp boring. That was a brave decision. Looked like 6 of one half a doz of the other to me (but he is closer .. only by a few thousand miles). Brave because it was a white put in, in white's 22 and was 3 pts to blue. Me? i think i would have blown, reset and warned both props for boring and to drive straight.

2. On 27 mins. blue line out. blue catch, white move aside (see other threads to do with this line out tactic). Blue move ball to the back and move forward. White player runs round and tackles ball carrier. RD blows for scrum to white, accidental offside. Again, brave ...

3. On 34 mins. Penalty adva inside blue 22, white 9 sort of communicates to ref that he doesnt want adv. Pen to white. I wonder what the white capt might have said.

4. on 38 mins blue attacking in/ around white 22, pick and drive, short drives round fringes and RD gets in the way twice. Very flat.

5. Injury early on, line out continues despite injury being resolved around the 15m mark of the line out.

Very interesting.
Generally, i thought he did ok.

jboulet4648
06-02-07, 18:02
any oidea why only 2 FR subs permitted?

didds

That is incorrect. In an international match, or any match where you wish to nominate 22 players, five players must be suitable to play in the front row, hence the three starters, and two additional players, one of those must be able to play hooker.

As long as a team nominates two additional players as front row capable, they can have seven subs. If the team so chooses to sub out the entire front row with fresh bodies, that is their choice. If the team wishes to nominate both flankers as their two FR replacements, then they have 7 subs to use.

It is a misconception that of the substitute players, two must be FR.


Law three, Rule 5
(e.) When 19, 20, 21 or 22 players are nominated in a team, there must be sufficient front row players to play at hooker, tight-head prop and loose-head prop who are suitably trained and experienced to ensure that on both the first occasion and second occasions that a replacement in any front row position is required, the team can continue to play safely with congtested scrums.

(d) The replacement of a front row forward may come from suitably trained and experienced players who started the match or from the nominated replacements.

OB..
06-02-07, 19:02
jboulet4648 - I think you are answering the wrong question. I quoted this bit of law earlier:-
Law 3.4 [...] A team can substitute up to two front row players and up to five other players.

However many FR players there are on the bench, only "up to 2" of them can be used as substitutes (ie tactically). This is different from using them as replacements (ie in case of injury).

Deeps
07-02-07, 10:02
It is certainly the ref's easist option - but is it Equitable? Does it not put Law (or indeed referee's self-interest) above Equity?

Of course it is equitable if you treat both teams in the same manner. The trick is to make a big fuss at the first instance, that sympathy with the unfortunate's happenstance is not covered in law and that you want a free flowing game which will be enhanced significantly if players cooperate and get out of the way of the ball. Where, unequivocally, it is not players' fault then 'ball unplayable...', yet not much happens accidentally in my view or certainly that cannot be discouraged/managed by a near zero tolerance policy.

If they can manage it 'ont telly', then they can have a go elsewhere too.