Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42

Thread: New Laws : 8 in a scrum

      
  1. #1

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    9,026
    Thanks (Received)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    776

    Default New Laws : 8 in a scrum

    This got touched on in another thread but to clear the wheat from the chaff here's a separate query:

    The new law trials for 2017/18 include

    3.6 Number of Players – The Team
    Uncontested scrums as a result of a sending off, temporary suspension or injury must be played with eight players per side.


    So does that mean that if through having an incomplete side, or through cards, a team has less than 15 players and elects to field less than eight in the scrum they can do so all the time it is contested.

    But as soon as it becomes uncontested through injuries/cards, it must at that time become 8 man?

    SUMMARY : there can be contested scrums with less than 8 players, but not uncontested?

    didds

  2. #2

    Referees in England
    Phil E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Staffordshire and Royal Navy
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    22 Jan 08
    Posts
    14,465
    Thanks (Received)
    109
    Likes (Received)
    967
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: New Laws : 8 in a scrum

    Yes I believe you are correct.

    If a back get carded or sent off it's still contested and there are still 8 in the scrum.

    If a non front row forward gets carded (i.e. flanker or No 8) we still have contested scrums but the offending team has 7 in the scrum.

    If a Front Row gets carded and no replacements are available such that we now go to uncontested scrums, then they have to bring a back into the scrum to keep it at 8.

    Follow my Award Winning blog The Rugby Ref


  3. #3

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    9,026
    Thanks (Received)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    776

    Default Re: New Laws : 8 in a scrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil E View Post
    Yes I believe you are correct.

    If a back get carded or sent off it's still contested and there are still 8 in the scrum
    Not if you turned up with only 14 players, or a bare 15 with FR replacement coming from onfield (still ST&E) and played with a 7 man scrummage and 7 backs, with a contested scrummage.

    This is the nuance that WR seem to have ignored - that there is a huge swathe of rugby played that play in this scenario. they have just assumed sides always start with 8 in a scrummage, and/or never get an injury with no bench. Or now I consider it bench players and several injuries!

    But I concur with you generally Phil. The issue I see from this is that it will prevent 13 v 12 down in the real roots from even trying to get any gamje underway, and 25 people will have no game at all. hardly a positive step.

    didds

  4. #4

    Referees in England
    Phil E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Staffordshire and Royal Navy
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    22 Jan 08
    Posts
    14,465
    Thanks (Received)
    109
    Likes (Received)
    967
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: New Laws : 8 in a scrum

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    But I concur with you generally Phil. The issue I see from this is that it will prevent 13 v 12 down in the real roots from even trying to get any gamje underway, and 25 people will have no game at all. hardly a positive step.

    didds
    I would expect local competition regs to deal with that.

    Follow my Award Winning blog The Rugby Ref


  5. #5

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    9,026
    Thanks (Received)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    776

    Default Re: New Laws : 8 in a scrum

    How? The laws say if uncontested it must be 8 v 8.

    For that 12 v 13 example, that leaves one side with 3 backs and the other side 4, plus an 8 man scrum and a scrumhalf each.

    didds

  6. #6

    Advises in England
    OB..'s Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Glos & District
    Grade
    Adviser (grass roots)
    Join Date
    07 Oct 04
    Posts
    22,047
    Thanks (Received)
    91
    Likes (Received)
    1286

    Default Re: New Laws : 8 in a scrum

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    How? The laws say if uncontested it must be 8 v 8.

    For that 12 v 13 example, that leaves one side with 3 backs and the other side 4, plus an 8 man scrum and a scrumhalf each.

    didds
    20.1 (e) Number of players: eight. A scrum must have eight players from each team. All eight players must stay bound to the scrum until it ends. Each front row must have three players in it, no more and no less. Two locks must form the second row.

    Sanction: Penalty kick
    Exception: When a team is reduced to fewer than fifteen for any reason, then the number of players of each team in the scrum may be similarly reduced. Where a permitted reduction is made by one team, there is no requirement for the other team to make a similar reduction. However, a team must not have fewer than five players in the scrum.
    Presumably this exception still applies.
    He trudg’d along unknowing what he sought,
    And whistled as he went, for want of thought.
    The Referee by John Dryden

  7. #7
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Cambridge and St Neots
    Grade
    I am a Fan
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Posts
    1,191
    Thanks (Received)
    16
    Likes (Received)
    176

    Default Re: New Laws : 8 in a scrum

    I note it is missing a variation for 10s or 7s.

    While there is a variation in law 20 as there i not one here, in a game of 7s you still need 8 men in an uncontested scrum.

    WR are drunk in charge of a rule book.

  8. #8
    Player or Coach

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    07 Mar 17
    Posts
    429
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    85

    Default Re: New Laws : 8 in a scrum

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    How? The laws say if uncontested it must be 8 v 8.

    For that 12 v 13 example, that leaves one side with 3 backs and the other side 4, plus an 8 man scrum and a scrumhalf each.

    didds
    It also seems to mean that the 'Innocent' team that never caused the 'uncontested' situation is also forced to put another player in the scrum [say the game started with 7v7 in each scrum, for a 14-a-side game]

    Clearly having uneven numbers in a non-contested scrum isn't a safety issue, so it makes more sense IMO to allow the non offending side to have less players in the uncontested scrum IF they choose, if that then gives the offenders a numerical disadvantage in the backs then so be it.

  9. #9

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    9,026
    Thanks (Received)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    776

    Default Re: New Laws : 8 in a scrum

    Quote Originally Posted by OB.. View Post
    Presumably this exception still applies.
    We don't really have any other option do we? As you quite rightly point out OB, we have to make sense of what the law book says - but its another example of one step forward and several backwards, sideways or extra ones forward depending on the individual who has to make sense of it on the day.

    Wouldn't it just be clearer if instead of saying "8" at uncontested scrums it said some sort of wording indicating it should be the number used in the scrum before it went uncontested?

    OB's point makes clear sense to me. But we all know that some poor bugger with a whistle one day isn;t going to read it that way. Ot even agree of he does "know" OB's point. "IT says 8 in this law. 8 it will be".

    didds

  10. #10

    Referees in Holland


    Soc/Assoc
    NSRS
    Grade
    Newish
    Join Date
    20 Jan 11
    Posts
    1,299
    Thanks (Received)
    16
    Likes (Received)
    75

    Default Re: New Laws : 8 in a scrum

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    How? The laws say if uncontested it must be 8 v 8.
    The Dutch youth regulations for contested scrums are they must be 3-4-1 with just one "last row" who has to bind between the locks.

    But "if a team is unable, for any reason whatsoever, to select a full team or keep them in the field, then the formation of the scrum is as follows: [] If a team is missing 1 player, both scrums must have a 3-4 formation (i.e. without Nr. 8), [] If a team is missing 2 players, both scrums must have a 3-2-1 formation (i.e. without flankers), [] If a team is missing 3 players, both scrums must have a 3-2 formation (i.e. only a front row with two locks)."

    Admittedly the only mention of scrums going uncontested in the senior regulations for 2017-2018 is unchanged from last year and allows for matches to be claimed if scrums go uncontested due to insufficient front row players.

    Here, ten players turning up is acceptable, particularly if that's all you have. At the lowest levels for seniors, and also juniors of all ages, the maximum difference between team sizes is 1. So if 10 men turn up to an away game, the hosts have the choice of lending them 2 of their starting 15 and playing 13-12. They also have the option of lending nobody, or of lending 4 or 5 if they have the reserves willing to do that.

    Let's say they don't. The home side may have only 10 men themselves. All 20 players want a game. Are you, as a referee, going to insist that the scrums pack down 8 v 8 when it goes uncontested in the final quarter, when an injury to a front row player takes the game to 10 v 9?

    If a friendly game is scheduled pre-season, and fewer than 30 guys show up in total, including five front row players, meaning that scrums are uncontested from the very start, and both teams want to play with a six-man pack, are you going to insist that four backs pack in at every non-contest?

    The laws are important. But not as important as safety, which is the purpose of the Dutch regulation for contested scrums for juniors. And not necessarily as important as a fair contest, which in this case could be a prop feigning an injury (again, I would rather believe that a fellow member of the front row union will not do so likely, but he may be a flanker promoted out of position that season and be "psychologically" injured).

    You don't have to be literal. If scrums start with reduced numbers, keep them equal, use the captains to agree on how many they want to start with if they can, otherwise determine what is safe by yourself (protip: if a single defending flanker packs on his own loose-head too, there may be some spinning from the couple made. ATP).

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •