Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: Changes to Uncontested Scrum Law

      
  1. #11

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    LSRFUR
    Grade
    10
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    14,682
    Thanks (Received)
    99
    Likes (Received)
    1364

    Default Re: Changes to Uncontested Scrum Law

    It reads like the 12 year old wrote it Sunday morning .

  2. #12
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Level 3
    Join Date
    03 Sep 14
    Posts
    3,330
    Thanks (Received)
    29
    Likes (Received)
    507

    Default Re: Changes to Uncontested Scrum Law

    Well lets start with:

    Wales cheated. However, they are not the first and will not be the last.


    The official must take the word of the team that the player is not fit to continue. Safety demands that. So what is in the interests of the game when it comes to a solution?

    Does forcing a team to paly a man short help? Well lets be fair and forget the front row for a minute.

    We have two scenarios possible

    1 a tean has no sub options left but has previosly subbed FR players available to return if required.

    2 a team has subs options avaiable but not STE for the FR.

    Now if a non FR player went off in senario 1 the team goes down to 14 (etc). Where as if it is a FR player a STE replacement cmust take place.

    Now if a non FR player went off in senario 2 the player is replaced. So why not the same for the FR? - Because they may be cheating comes athe reply. There is no reason to deny a replacement for injury otherwise.

    Is that realy fair? I'm not sure it is.

    So how do we "hit" the cheats without being unfair to the unlucky? Do we say any FR player wh is "injured" takea madatory 2 weeks off to allow the injury to "properly heal"? Would that deter teams?

    Do we fine teams causing U/C scrums (particularly when due to cards)?

    Is "man off" the only way?

    Or do we just have to accept there is no solution?

    As an aside:

    A number of years ago a club coach in Wales sent a message down to pitchside just before a 5m scrum to get the LH off and go uncontested. His wish was carried out. The scrum took place and with a solid platform the opposition 8 picked up and walked over for the winning try. The same coach has been a vocal critic of the welsh camp since the Georgia game.

    Now had that scrum been contested there were several possibilities:

    1 Try try would still have come
    2 With all the movement the 8 might not have picked up with control and a knock on may have occurred
    3 The movement and instability inherent in a scrum may have made the scrum more defendable in general and the attack may have been defended.
    4 The ball might have gone against the head.

    Who Knows?

    I think that in cases like the Wales V Georgia one, the referee should offer the penalty options again to the non offending side. After all Georgia opted of a scrum for obvious reasons. After the fact the dynanic changed. But I also think that by having to maintain a full scrum Wales has gamps and Georgia had a real advantage with the man over in the backs and with clear positive all from the scrum probably should have made more of the scrum anyway.

  3. #13

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    11,636
    Thanks (Received)
    87
    Likes (Received)
    1049

    Default Re: Changes to Uncontested Scrum Law

    Quote Originally Posted by SimonSmith View Post
    This? A flow chart will be forthcoming.
    If I say Mornington Crescent at this point, do I win?
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

  4. #14

    Referees in England
    ctrainor's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Cumbria Referees Society
    Grade
    7
    Join Date
    23 Jun 05
    Posts
    2,239
    Thanks (Received)
    7
    Likes (Received)
    126

    Default Re: Changes to Uncontested Scrum Law

    The man off rule rarely causes issues where I operate at L7 and below. Amazing many times a team will say we'll have to go uncontested sir and when I remind them that it is a man off, the "injured" player suddenly recovers or somebody else steps up and reveals they are ST&E to play in the front row.
    I know the dynamics are a little different at the top end but I'm sure man off would result in less "injured" front rows and less farces for us all to watch.
    Ciaran Trainor

  5. #15
    Player or Coach

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

    Default Re: Changes to Uncontested Scrum Law

    Quote Originally Posted by ctrainor View Post
    The man off rule rarely causes issues where I operate at L7 and below. Amazing many times a team will say we'll have to go uncontested sir and when I remind them that it is a man off, the "injured" player suddenly recovers or somebody else steps up and reveals they are ST&E to play in the front row.
    I know the dynamics are a little different at the top end but I'm sure man off would result in less "injured" front rows and less farces for us all to watch.
    Then card them for unsportsmanlike or fakery or simulation behaviours !

  6. #16
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Level 3
    Join Date
    03 Sep 14
    Posts
    3,330
    Thanks (Received)
    29
    Likes (Received)
    507

    Default Re: Changes to Uncontested Scrum Law

    Quote Originally Posted by ctrainor View Post
    The man off rule rarely causes issues where I operate at L7 and below. Amazing many times a team will say we'll have to go uncontested sir and when I remind them that it is a man off, the "injured" player suddenly recovers or somebody else steps up and reveals they are ST&E to play in the front row.
    I know the dynamics are a little different at the top end but I'm sure man off would result in less "injured" front rows and less farces for us all to watch.
    If a team claims a FR player is injured only to change their mind when "man off" is confirmed. I am not allowing the change of mind. If that player is subsequently badly injured the ref would be in the mess.

    STE players are established BEFORE the game not during. Once a player is "injured" they are injured. Any such change of diagnosis will be reported but not allowed.

  7. #17

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    LSRFUR
    Grade
    10
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    14,682
    Thanks (Received)
    99
    Likes (Received)
    1364

    Default Re: Changes to Uncontested Scrum Law

    You are right in principle , but out in the weeds the distinction between injured and just knackered is bit blurry , and people do legitimately recover from injuries .. eg perhaps they went back to the changing room and fetched their puffer .. sometime some flexible common sense is called for

  8. #18
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Level 3
    Join Date
    03 Sep 14
    Posts
    3,330
    Thanks (Received)
    29
    Likes (Received)
    507

    Default Re: Changes to Uncontested Scrum Law

    I was called for it by an assessor. so Our instrutions are clear. Off for a puffer is very different and would / should be made clear. If a player is marked and replaced (injured) he is not coming back on simple as that. Your assessors / union may take a different line but they are not in charge of me.

  9. #19

    Promises to Referee in France
    L'irlandais's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    CT Alsace-Lorraine
    Grade
    EdR + LCA
    Join Date
    11 May 10
    Posts
    3,603
    Thanks (Received)
    27
    Likes (Received)
    144

    Question Re: Changes to Uncontested Scrum Law

    Clarification 1 2018
    We therefore ask that you clarify the following:

    Is the Law Application Guideline supported by Law? Law 3.6(d) states that a player, whose departure results in a team being unable to contest the scrum, cannot be replaced. We can see no provision in Law for a further player to have to leave the field if the departure is due to a suspension.
    Is the following correct? If a front row player is suspended and uncontested scrums are ordered the following must occur:
    The suspended player leaves the field; and
    A further player leaves the field; and
    A third player might have to leave the field to allow an available front row player to come on.
    Through one incident three players from the same team may have to leave the field.
    "We demand strict proof for opinions we dislike, but are satisfied with mere hints for what we’re inclined to accept."
    John Henry Newman

  10. #20

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    LSRFUR
    Grade
    10
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    14,682
    Thanks (Received)
    99
    Likes (Received)
    1364

    Default Re: Changes to Uncontested Scrum Law

    Gosh , that deserves a new thread on its own

    Where can we find the Dec 2017 Law Application Guideline referred to ?

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
  •