Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Uncontested. Man off law and updated logic tree

      
  1. #1
    Slowing down these days

    Soc/Assoc
    London Society
    Grade
    Level 8
    Join Date
    21 Jan 09
    Posts
    327
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    37

    Default Uncontested. Man off law and updated logic tree

    Can anyone point me to an updated F R logic tree.
    I read a thread on here recently which concluded that , when a team loses a prop , due to card or injury, AND there is no suitable replacement the the referr must start using uncontested scrums. The other conclusion, was that there was also a "man off" law in which the offemding team must drop a player. I presume this is to deter teams from abusing the laws by using the uncontested option for tactical advarage ?

    Idies anyone have a reference fire this please?
    If i yelliw card a prop, and there is no replacement, do the offenders then need to go down to 13 players for 10 mins?

  2. #2

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    LSRFUR
    Grade
    10
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    15,279
    Thanks (Received)
    108
    Likes (Received)
    1455

    Default Re: Uncontested. Man off law and updated logic tree

    It varies from competition to competition .. you need to read the regs for the competitions you ref in

  3. #3

    Referees in Ireland


    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Level 1
    Join Date
    25 May 16
    Posts
    473
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Received)
    40

    Default Re: Uncontested. Man off law and updated logic tree

    Does this apply to the progfesional tv rugby .
    It seems that not being able to replace the 1st player is a fair rule .
    Stay at 14 players , but put 8 in uncontested scrum
    But to instruct another player off as well seems odd .

    I understand player 1 gets sin binned ,
    For player 16 to come on at next scrum .
    A player else where on field must leave to allow player 16 on .
    This means they still down to 14 men .

    But if there is no trained front row available ( for genuine injury reasons )
    It seems odd that another player has to leave also .

    If a team has fulfilled their front row requirements .
    How can they be extra punished for genuinely not being able to make a change .

  4. #4

    Advises in England
    OB..'s Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Glos & District
    Grade
    Adviser (grass roots)
    Join Date
    07 Oct 04
    Posts
    22,125
    Thanks (Received)
    94
    Likes (Received)
    1331

    Default Re: Uncontested. Man off law and updated logic tree

    I am not aware of any ruling or law that made a team reduce to 13 players (rather than 14) if unable to replace a front rower.
    He trudg’d along unknowing what he sought,
    And whistled as he went, for want of thought.
    The Referee by John Dryden

  5. #5

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    LSRFUR
    Grade
    10
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    15,279
    Thanks (Received)
    108
    Likes (Received)
    1455

    Default Re: Uncontested. Man off law and updated logic tree

    Clarification 1 of 2018 says that you reduce to 13, but applies only to games with a squad of 23 .. ie international games

  6. #6
    Slowing down these days

    Soc/Assoc
    London Society
    Grade
    Level 8
    Join Date
    21 Jan 09
    Posts
    327
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    37

    Default Re: Uncontested. Man off law and updated logic tree

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    Clarification 1 of 2018 says that you reduce to 13, but applies only to games with a squad of 23 .. ie international games
    Thanks crossref. So there is no disincentive for a team to go uncontested when there is plenty of tactical advantage to do so ?

    I have now found a link to http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Docum...x2_English.pdf
    Paragraph 15(b) . I shall paste in here to save time:
    ------
    In League Matches at Levels 3 and below, Cup Matches and Play-Off
    Matches if on any occasion uncontested scrum(s) are ordered by the
    Referee, in accordance with (a)(i) above, due to injury (including a
    temporary blood injury) or consequent to a Player being temporarily
    suspended or ordered off or for any other reason, the team concerned
    shall not be entitled to replace the Player whose departure caused the
    uncontested scrum. On the return to the field of a front row Player
    who has been temporarily excluded the Match shall continue with
    contested scrums provided it is safe to do so. Subject to paragraph
    18 below, the result of the match shall stand
    ----
    Not simply worded ?
    I'd be interested to know how to interpret this

  7. #7

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    LSRFUR
    Grade
    10
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    15,279
    Thanks (Received)
    108
    Likes (Received)
    1455

    Default Re: Uncontested. Man off law and updated logic tree

    That says that when you lose a front row you stay at 14
    In internationals if you have a YC and go uncontested then you have to go to 13

  8. #8

    Referees in England
    Phil E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Staffordshire and Royal Navy
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    22 Jan 08
    Posts
    14,533
    Thanks (Received)
    114
    Likes (Received)
    1013
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Uncontested. Man off law and updated logic tree

    Quote Originally Posted by CrouchTPEngage View Post
    ----
    Not simply worded ?
    I'd be interested to know how to interpret this
    Ignoring the new clarification for 23 man squads.

    If a team cannot replace a front row (at any time) and as a result the game goes uncontested. then the player that went off to cause the uncontested cannot be replaced.

    So any game with uncontested scrums will be 15v14

    If the player went off temporarily as a Yellow Card, then when he comes back on from the card its 15v15 again and contested.

    However, as CR says check local competition rules as they can waive this and stay at 15v15 in some competitions.

    Follow my Award Winning blog The Rugby Ref


  9. #9
    Slowing down these days

    Soc/Assoc
    London Society
    Grade
    Level 8
    Join Date
    21 Jan 09
    Posts
    327
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    37

    Default Re: Uncontested. Man off law and updated logic tree

    Thanks PHil. That makes sense.
    But in the specific example where their last known FR player get a yellow-card.
    Which is correct.

    1) They play 15 v 14 for 10 mins and , if there is a scrum in that 10 mins, and they declare they must go uncontested, then they must lose another player. So we have 15 v13 on the pitch with the requirement of 8 in the scrum meaning its 5 backs v 7 backs. After 10 mins, we go back to 15 v 15 and contested.

    2) They play 15 v 14 for 10 mins, at the next scrum (in that 10 minute sin bin period ) they go uncontested. We keep it 15 v 14 on the pitch with 8-each in the uncontested scrum ? After the 10 mins, we go back to 15v15 and contested scrums

    Thanks
    Last edited by CrouchTPEngage; 13-03-18 at 14:03.

  10. #10

    Referees in England
    Phil E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Staffordshire and Royal Navy
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    22 Jan 08
    Posts
    14,533
    Thanks (Received)
    114
    Likes (Received)
    1013
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Uncontested. Man off law and updated logic tree

    Quote Originally Posted by CrouchTPEngage View Post
    Thanks PHil. That makes sense.
    But in the specific example where their last known FR player get a yellow-card.
    Which is correct.

    1) They play 15 v 14 for 10 mins and , if there is a scrum in that 10 mins, and they declare they must go uncontested, then they must lose another player. So we have 15 v13 on the pitch with the requirement of 8 in the scrum meaning its 5 back v 7 backs.

    2) They play 15 v 14 for 10 mins, at the next scrum (in that 10 minute sin bin period ) they go uncontested. We keep it 15 v 14 on the pitch with 8-each in the uncontested scrum ?

    Thanks
    No 2 is correct for you and me.

    The extra man down to 13 in example 1 is only for a 23 man squad at top level.

    Follow my Award Winning blog The Rugby Ref


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
  •