PDA

View Full Version : U19 Scrum formation - Questions



talbazar
27-10-14, 06:10
Guys and Gals,

I've highlighted in the U19 Law variation below the points which make me wonder how to manage the situation when one team is down to 14.
Example: Blue vs. Red. Red forward yellow carded. Next scrum


20.1 Forming a scrum

(e) In an 8 person scrum the formation must be 3-4-1, with the single player (normally the Number 8) shoving on the 2 locks. The locks must pack with their heads on either side of the hooker.

Exception: A team must have fewer than eight players in its scrum when the team cannot field eight suitably trained players in its scrum due to either the team not fielding a complete team, or a forward player being sent off or temporarily suspended for foul play, or a forward player leaving the field because of injury.

Even allowing for this exception, each team must always have at least five players in a scrum.

If a team is incomplete and it cannot field eight suitably trained players in its scrum, the scrum formation must be as follows:

If a team is without one forward player, then both teams must use a 3-4 formation (i.e. no No.8).

If a team is without two forward players, then both teams must use a 3-2-1 formation (i.e. no flankers).

If a team is without three forward players, then both teams must use a 3-2 formation (i.e. only front rows and locks).

When a normal scrum takes place, the players in the three front row positions and the two lock positions must have been suitably trained for these positions.

If a team cannot field such suitably trained players because:

either they are not available, or

a player in one of those five positions is injured or

has been sent off for Foul Play and no suitably trained replacement is available, then the referee must order uncontested scrums.

In an uncontested scrum, the teams do not compete for the ball. The team putting in the ball must win it. Neither team is allowed to push the other team away from the mark.

Question 1: Yellow carded Red is a suitably trained Lock.
Must the referee ask Red to fill up the scrum with 8 people by either:
- Bringing a back into back-row and a back-row into lock (if suitably trained)
or
- Bringing a temporary replacement for a lock position (if possible)

Question 2: Yellow Carded Red is a back-row
- Must the referee ask Red to fill up the scrum with 8 players (bringing a back in)
or
- Shall he go ahead with a 7 men-scrum?

Question 3: In the scenario above, if we go ahead with 7 men-scrum:
- Red scrum: They put 7 --> Blue must put 7 (and have a back-row going in the line) --> I believe I'm correct here
- Blue Scrum: Can blue put 8 and ask Red to match their number?

Cheers,
Pierre.

crossref
27-10-14, 09:10
We have discussed this many times before!
The answer that is generally accepted, by coaches and referees alike, is that if you YC a lock, then the game proceed with 7v7 in the scrum.

However if you YC a red lock and red then make a substitution and bring on a new lock , then opinions differ: some referees would now play 8v8 in the scrums, others would enforce 7v7. Take your choice..

Pegleg
27-10-14, 09:10
Interesting one. I'd go for allowing 8v8 if a back is taken off for a STE forward replacement.

That in itself raises a question does that count as a temporary sub (as per FR in full laws after a YC) or permanent replacement?

crossref
27-10-14, 10:10
In england youth games are generally played with unlimited interchanges.

Pegleg
27-10-14, 11:10
That solve that one fro you nicely. Sadly not for us. Will ask at the next meeting.

Phil E
27-10-14, 13:10
The answer that is generally accepted, by coaches and referees alike, is that if you YC a lock, then the game proceed with 7v7 in the scrum.

......with both teams dropping their #8, so as to maintain equal balance in the scrum (i.e. they can't drop a flanker and keep the #8).

ChrisR
27-10-14, 14:10
If the scrum is reduced to 7v7 then the formation is 3-4 but it is up to the teams to determine who plays. Is that what you meant?

crossref
27-10-14, 14:10
It's complicated as the u19 variations specify that players playing as locks should be STE for that position.

Basically if you YC an STE player, and the team subsequently do a substitution to bring on a fresh STE player, the question is who are they allowed to take off? Must they take off a forward and play 7 in scrum? Or must they take off a back and play 8 in scrum.. Or can they choose...

Dixie
27-10-14, 15:10
It's complicated as the u19 variations specify that players playing as locks should be STE for that position. Indeed. And that raises the interesting (and wholly unaddressed!) question of what training and experience is considered suitable for a lock forward? I find it hard to imagine - perhaps Phil E can give us a clue. I thought the main risk for a lock was oxygen depletion at rarefied atmospheres.

Phil E
27-10-14, 15:10
Bend over and push!!

didds
27-10-14, 17:10
*shudders*


;-) <----

didds

Browner
27-10-14, 19:10
Bend over and push!!

Backwards is OK darling http://www.rugbyrefs.com/images/smilies/8.gif

Browner
27-10-14, 19:10
It's complicated as the u19 variations specify that players playing as locks should be STE for that position.

Basically if you YC an STE player, and the team subsequently do a substitution to bring on a fresh STE player, the question is who are they allowed to take off? Must they take off a forward and play 7 in scrum? Or must they take off a back and play 8 in scrum.. Or can they choose...

For me, for two reasons , scrums largely meaningless at u19, & less players in backs = bigger advantage to non offending side ( generally)

Pegleg
28-10-14, 00:10
Indeed. And that raises the interesting (and wholly unaddressed!) question of what training and experience is considered suitable for a lock forward?

That's the reply I got at a meeting tonight. Worry about the FR was basically the advice. So no YC substitution for a 2nd row being binned.

crossref
28-10-14, 00:10
Indeed. And that raises the interesting (and wholly unaddressed!) question of what training and experience is considered suitable for a lock forward?

That's the reply I got at a meeting tonight. Worry about the FR was basically the advice. So no YC substitution for a 2nd row being binned.

Not clear what you mean by this, really

Pegleg
28-10-14, 01:10
I agree with Dixie. I do not understand what specific training you need to be STE for second row duties. Although Phil sees to sum it up nicely.

Secondly whereas the law requires that a FR forward is replace with a STE FR player in the event of a sin bin with another player being subjected to a temp substitution. We will not do that for a second row. The is taking into account we do not apply interchanges at youth level here.

crossref
28-10-14, 12:10
I agree with Dixie. I do not understand what specific training you need to be STE for second row duties. Although Phil sees to sum it up nicely.

Secondly whereas the law requires that a FR forward is replace with a STE FR player in the event of a sin bin with another player being subjected to a temp substitution. We will not do that for a second row. The is taking into account we do not apply interchanges at youth level here.

Pegleg, the real issue is ~ if they use an interchange and bring on a new forward, must they take off a forward, or must they take off a back? Or can they choose?

Pegleg
28-10-14, 14:10
Pegleg, the real issue is ~ if they use an interchange and bring on a new forward, must they take off a forward, or must they take off a back? Or can they choose?

As stated:
We do not apply interchanges at youth level here. so it is not something to be considered. We would not however allow any player to come off so that a STE SR could cover the sin bin period.

To answer your RFU centric question you'll need to get an answer from RFU land sorry.

crossref
28-10-14, 14:10
Pegleg, the real issue is ~ if they use an interchange and bring on a new forward, must they take off a forward, or must they take off a back? Or can they choose?

As stated:
We do not apply interchanges at youth level here. so it is not something to be considered. We would not however allow any player to come off so that a STE SR could cover the sin bin period.

To answer your RFU centric question you'll need to get an answer from RFU land sorry.

I didn't understand your previous reply. Too cryptic for me. Are you saying g that in your world youth teams are not allowed to make tactical substitutions? I see.

What if you YC a prop . Same question to you.. at the next scrum the team will have to bring on a new STE prop. In your world who leaves the field? Must it be a forward (so we have seven in scrum) or must it be a back (eight in scrum) or can they choose?

Dixie
28-10-14, 19:10
Bend over and push!!

Ah! Same as fagging at a public school. Can easily be managed by 13 year-olds without training.

Pegleg
29-10-14, 00:10
I didn't understand your previous reply. Too cryptic for me. Are you saying g that in your world youth teams are not allowed to make tactical substitutions? I see.

What if you YC a prop . Same question to you.. at the next scrum the team will have to bring on a new STE prop. In your world who leaves the field? Must it be a forward (so we have seven in scrum) or must it be a back (eight in scrum) or can they choose?


To make it less cryptic for you.

IRB under 19 laws apply to Under 19 games here in Wales. We do not apply the optional Law 3.13 at Under 19 as a rule.

talbazar
29-10-14, 01:10
STE Lock
To me it's pretty clear when you ref youth rugby that the non-trained locks can lead to (more) trouble for their front row.
What trains did you ask?
Body position, making their push flat and don't drive their props bum up, making sure they keep their props and hooker tight together, etc...

But all that discussion doesn't answer the OP :biggrin:

crossref
29-10-14, 09:10
To make it less cryptic for you.

IRB under 19 laws apply to Under 19 games here in Wales. We do not apply the optional Law 3.13 at Under 19 as a rule.

Yes, got it.
But back to the real topic of the thread,

What if you YC a prop?
At the next scrum the team will have to bring on a new STE prop. In your world who leaves the field? Must it be a forward (so we have seven in scrum)?
or must it be a back (eight in scrum)?
or can they choose?

Pegleg
29-10-14, 09:10
Does the law specify who may replace a FR forward in such a situation?

No. In fact, I've actually seen a winger taken off at pro level for a temp prop cover.

There's your answer.

crossref
29-10-14, 10:10
Does the law specify who may replace a FR forward in such a situation?

No. In fact, I've actually seen a winger taken off at pro level for a temp prop cover.

There's your answer.

I agree.
It means that the offending team (the team with the YC) , have the choice of whether the match proceeds with 7 or 8 in the scrum. Which is correct (in my view) but controversial

Pegleg
29-10-14, 11:10
Personally ( though I accept not necessarily in law) I feel that the pack should always be 8 unless ALL replacements have been used such that to do so a back would be required to play in the scrum. Our masters have decreed that the front row is "special" yet they are happy to have 8 pushing against 7, 6 or even 5 ( at senior level).

Phil E
29-10-14, 11:10
I am going to paste this for crossref, but he already knows about it because it has been gone through to death on here previously. :deadhorse:



Clarification 6 2009

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling6-2009
UnionARU
Law Reference20
Date10 August 2009
This Clarification was incorporated into Law in 2009

Request
1. The U19 Law Variation refers to a team having fewer than eight players in its scrum when “…the team cannot field a complete team, or a player sent off for Foul Play, or a player leaves the field because of injury.” Does this Law Variation also apply if a player is cautioned and temporarily suspended (yellow card)?

2. The U19 law Variation refers to both teams using reduced numbers of players in the scrum formation if “…a team is incomplete…” because it is without one, two or three players. No distinction is made between forward players and back players. If a No. 15 is sent off early in a match, must both teams play with seven players in the scrum, even though both teams still have eight players suitably trained and capable of playing in the scrum?

3. If a team cannot field a complete team because it is short one or more forward player, but that team is able to provide form the available players suitably trained players to contest scrums, may the game proceed/continue with eight player scrums per team?

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

The complete team is a reference to having eight players who can play in the scrum. If a forward leaves the field of play for any reason and cannot be replaced due to injury, sending off, temporary suspension or any other reason then both teams must reduce the number of players in the scrum so that there are equal numbers in both teams at the scrum.

If any player in the other than a forward has to leave the field for any reason and cannot be replaced there will be no reduction in the players playing in the scrum.

crossref
29-10-14, 12:10
so there you see the different interpretations on display.

In the scenario here (YC to a prop), when an STE prop comes on for the next scrum Phil E will insist that it is a forward who leaves the pitch, so that there can be seven in the scrum.

I don't think the Law says that, the Law deals with situations where a forward CAN NOT be replaced, but the YC prop CAN be replaced - indeed he MUST be replaced to maintian a STE front row. it's a question of who has to come off.

I thnk they can take off a back.

pegleg thinks they ought to take off a back

Phil E
29-10-14, 14:10
In the IRB clarification above, which part of

"Leaves the field of play for any reason"

Are you having a problem understanding?

The intent of the clarification seems perfectly clear to me and most other people.
I understand you may not like it or agree with it, but that's a different thing.

crossref
29-10-14, 14:10
I think the law covers the scenario of one team running out of forwards, which is not the case here, when the new STE prop comes on they have eight available forwards I just don't read that clarification as requiring one of those eight to leave the field (rather than a back)

Phil E
29-10-14, 18:10
Whatever.
You read it differently to me.....but that seems to apply to a lot of things.

Pegleg
29-10-14, 18:10
pegleg thinks they ought to take off a back


Pegleg said no such thing. I said the law does not prevent a back being replaced at senior level and I have seen it done at pro level.

Peglege said (THE LAWS NOT withstanding) that I would like to see it that you have to bring the scrum up to 8 at all times if possible. however that is not the law so Pegleg will work with the law as it is written.

Pegleg
29-10-14, 18:10
Clearly that ruling (I'd missed it) says that you have to go down to 7 in the scrum. So we have a clear answer for U19s.

talbazar
30-10-14, 01:10
In the IRB clarification above, which part of

"Leaves the field of play for any reason"

Are you having a problem understanding?

The intent of the clarification seems perfectly clear to me and most other people.
I understand you may not like it or agree with it, but that's a different thing.

PhilE, it's not that part which is not clear to me, it's what comes after.
Does "due to injury, sending off, temporary suspension or any other reason" apply to
"Leaves the field of play"
or
"cannot be replaced"
?

If the the first one, then you go for 7 as long as a forward if out of the field of play.
If the second, a team would have to do their upmost to fill 8 players in the scrum at all time.

Furthermore, if you YC a FR. you need a replacement STE FR for the next scrum. Neither the U19 variation nor the clarification clearly prevent a team to replace a winger with a STE FR...
One can argue that the last sentence of the clarification could apply to that wing you get out temporarily to get an STE FR on the pitch...


Clearly that ruling (I'd missed it) says that you have to go down to 7 in the scrum. So we have a clear answer for U19s.
Maybe I'm over-thinking this, but unfortunately, I don't believe we have...

Dixie
30-10-14, 09:10
I am going to paste this for crossref, but he already knows about it because it has been gone through to death on here previously. :deadhorse:



Clarification 6 2009

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling6-2009
UnionARU
Law Reference20
Date10 August 2009
This Clarification was incorporated into Law in 2009

Request
1. The U19 Law Variation refers to a team having fewer than eight players in its scrum when “…the team cannot field a complete team, or a player sent off for Foul Play, or a player leaves the field because of injury.” Does this Law Variation also apply if a player is cautioned and temporarily suspended (yellow card)?

2. The U19 law Variation refers to both teams using reduced numbers of players in the scrum formation if “…a team is incomplete…” because it is without one, two or three players. No distinction is made between forward players and back players. If a No. 15 is sent off early in a match, must both teams play with seven players in the scrum, even though both teams still have eight players suitably trained and capable of playing in the scrum?

3. If a team cannot field a complete team because it is short one or more forward player, but that team is able to provide form the available players suitably trained players to contest scrums, may the game proceed/continue with eight player scrums per team?

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

The complete team is a reference to having eight players who can play in the scrum. If a forward leaves the field of play for any reason and cannot be replaced due to injury, sending off, temporary suspension or any other reason then both teams must reduce the number of players in the scrum so that there are equal numbers in both teams at the scrum.

If any player in the other than a forward has to leave the field for any reason and cannot be replaced there will be no reduction in the players playing in the scrum.

I am going to wade in here, rather against my better judgement.

The clarification can be slightly re-worded without doing violence to its intent as follows:

If a forward leaves the field of play for any reason and, for any reason, cannot be replaced ... then both teams must reduce the number of players in the scrum so that there are equal numbers in both teams at the scrum.

Crossref postulates a scenario in which a YC to a prop results in a replacement arriving (the forward has been replaced, so no need to invoke the clarification) but there is then a requirement for a player to leave the field to meet the terms of the YC. There is nothing in law, so far as I know, to insist that this must be either a forward or a back - the decision is entirely open and lies with the captain per Law 3.5(n). If he chooses a forward, then "for any reason" that forward leaves the field. At that point, the referee should ask whether there is another player on the field willing to play in the scrum. If the answer is no - even if the reason is that the backs don't want to mess up their hair - then the scrums must equalise at 7 apiece.

Browner
30-10-14, 13:10
I am going to wade in here, rather against my better judgement.

The clarification can be slightly re-worded without doing violence to its intent as follows:

If a forward leaves the field of play for any reason and, for any reason, cannot be replaced ... then both teams must reduce the number of players in the scrum so that there are equal numbers in both teams at the scrum.

Crossref postulates a scenario in which a YC to a prop results in a replacement arriving (the forward has been replaced, so no need to invoke the clarification) but there is then a requirement for a player to leave the field to meet the terms of the YC. There is nothing in law, so far as I know, to insist that this must be either a forward or a back - the decision is entirely open and lies with the captain per Law 3.5(n). If he chooses a forward, then "for any reason" that forward leaves the field. At that point, the referee should ask whether there is another player on the field willing to play in the scrum. If the answer is no - even if the reason is that the backs don't want to mess up their hair - then the scrums must equalise at 7 apiece.

Well reworded Dixie.

Although instead of willing , I'd say ABLE.

I believe the thrust of this clarification is to keep the scrum at 8v8 if at all possible.

ChrisR
30-10-14, 13:10
Thanx all for the clarifications.

If you card a FR when do you call for the replacement? Immediately or at the next scrum?

If a FR has to leave for a 'blood' injury can he be replaced with a non-STE player until a scrum is required?

crossref
30-10-14, 13:10
Thanx all for the clarifications.

If you card a FR when do you call for the replacement? Immediately or at the next scrum?


In an age group game in RFU there would be unlimited interchanges it's up to the coach - they can make the substitution then and there (with the ref's permission as with any interchange) or they can wait for the next scrum when they would be required to make it.

As a referee I would only intervene at the next scrum, when I make sure I had an STE front row, requiring an interchange if necessary.

crossref
30-10-14, 13:10
If a FR has to leave for a 'blood' injury can he be replaced with a non-STE player until a scrum is required?

This worth a thread of its own, and I asked the same question on another thread, in the context of the recent man-off mistake in the LV cup.

The wider question is whether it is legal for a team - for any reason, blood, injury, just an interchange - to take off an STE player, and bring on a non-STE one, with the intention of sorting it out (another interchange, or going man-off) at the next scrum.

It seems to be legal, but not in the spirit of the game.

crossref
24-11-14, 10:11
Yesterday a scenario we have discussed actually happened :
- reffing an U18 game, I gave a YC to a flanker.
- At the next scrum, eight players presented themselves - the team had re-organised themselves and one of the players playing in the back line went to flanker for the set piece.

If a forward leaves the field of play for any reason and cannot be replaced due to injury, sending off, temporary suspension or any other reason then both teams must reduce the number of players in the scrum so that there are equal numbers in both teams at the scrum.

It seems to me
- a forward had left the field
- but it wasn't the case that he could not be replaced - indeed he had been replaced.

so I allowed it, and we continued with eight man scrums.

but this thread (and others before) certainly passed through my mind, and I acknowledge that other refs - reading the exact same law - would have insisted on seven man scrums.

crossref
01-12-14, 19:12
I am collecting these now.

Yesterday I was watching a game - U17 league game, society ref but in this game acting in a club-ref capacity: ie appointed by the home club (his club) to the ref the game.

Blue started the game with only 14 players, and had eight in the scrum.
after about 20 minutes a blue forward was injured and had to leave the field. No subs obviously.
some discussion between the referee, the blue captain and blue coach that I couldn't hear.

Referee restarted the game - it was a scrum restart - announcing that blue now had only six forwards. Scrums went to 3:2:1 (still contested). Red coaches made no objection, they preferred six to seven as with six there is still a #8 and therefore still the option to do #8 pick ups. (most likely this was exactly the reason that blue also wanted six)

Both teams were happy. Was the referee wrong?

(if I had been refereeing I would have done the same)

Stuartg
01-12-14, 20:12
I am collecting these now.

Yesterday I was watching a game - U17 league game, society ref but in this game acting in a club-ref capacity: ie appointed by the home club (his club) to the ref the game.

Blue started the game with only 14 players, and had eight in the scrum.
after about 20 minutes a blue forward was injured and had to leave the field. No subs obviously.
some discussion between the referee, the blue captain and blue coach that I couldn't hear.

Referee restarted the game - it was a scrum restart - announcing that blue now had only six forwards. Scrums went to 3:2:1 (still contested). Red coaches made no objection, they preferred six to seven as with six there is still a #8 and therefore still the option to do #8 pick ups. (most likely this was exactly the reason that blue also wanted six)

Both teams were happy. Was the referee wrong?

(if I had been refereeing I would have done the same)

I'm with you too.

ChrisR
02-12-14, 00:12
If both coaches agree then fine. Down two players it's fairer to the short side to have a 6 man scrum. 7 in the scrum leaves 6 defending 8 in the backs. As a coach of U-19 (1.5m drive, no wheel) I'd always chose to play less in the scrum if I was short.

didds
02-12-14, 02:12
One thing about the 7 man scrum option though... with no number 8 to controll the hooked ball, it can be a nightmare and it might be a defensive advantage to have messy ball for the opposition especially if the scrumhalf is quick enough to make life miserable for his oppo trying to struggle with messy ball. This is only a potential option above U15 in england of course (U15 and below the scumhalf cannot advance past the tunnel until the ball is picked or passed)

didds

crossref
02-12-14, 15:12
it was interesting that in the game on Sunday, whether the team was one short or two short, both times they elected numbers in the scrum to maintain a #8 (eight in, then six in).

it could have been without thinking about it much. my hunch is that the #8 was important to them.

Its probably relevant that they were winning the drive, and the ref was very generous in his 1.5m - the more you can get a drive on, the handier it is to have a #8 to control the ball, and to increase the options. I'd say a coach who was thinking clearly.

Browner
30-01-15, 01:01
Add this to your list Crossref, yesterday, U18.

HTime.
Blue have replaced both locks #5 with #20 & #4 has gone out to centres #18 replaced him.

Team warning is in place (repeat ruck handling) and Blue capt is reminded ( in earshot of coach ) that it still exists at start of 2nd half, "please make sure all replacements know" is my instruction. #20 commits a blatent and very late ruck handling offence, so ( in order to give BoDoubt as he's been on pitch c.3 mins) I admonish him, and ensure he's in no doubt of repeat sanction consequence.

3 mins later, Oh no, he makes a tackle the ball is placed ,ruck forms, & from the floor he lurches forward like a goalkeeper and gathers the ball just before the oppo scrum half picks it up! Wtf.

YC duly issued, at next knock on by blue (Red feed ) Blues present themselves to scrum with x7 in 3-4 configuration ready to pack down. Time off. I tell captain that he needs to have 8 in the scrum, teacher shouts on "they have to match us ref - age regs 7v7 & no #8 pick up" ,

I insist 8 ... "ONLY, if you've no STE lock replacement coach"

Coach - We haven't.
Me - "but your #8 has already packed down as a lock, and the original #5 can be interchanged, or #4 can come back in"
Coach - I think 8s not suitable
Me - "8, have you played lock before?"
8 - loads of times sir
Me - that great, coach, player says he's experienced
Me - Captain , your options are: either bring a back into position 8 or bring a forward on as an interchange
Capt - coach bring xx on ( the original #5)
#15 pipes up - I'll do it I've played 8 before
#4 also pipes up - I'll go back in
Me - capt, please decide asap
Capt - our full back will go into 8 sir
Me - excellent, time on, scrum red feed, ..... crouch +...

Post match cuppa & cake i chat to both teachers/coaches....... Interesting
A) never get YC for repeats ( really? Im amazed given their poor actions) - oh no, we just normally see PK after PK ...
B) both agree that non offending team shouldnt lose their no8 attack option
C) both accept that non 'offending team' were better advantaged by 7 v 6 in the backs
D) blue coach said he was more worried about being 6v7 , than being 7 v 8 in the backs (which he'd have wanted if he could get it)

:shrug:

PS...as an aside, I'm told that the "huge #20 is in the academy of a championship club" !

PS...interestingly the coach of the away side ( a retired player from a current championship club ) thought a ruck was "formed if the first supporting player 'parked' over the T&TP or when a third player on feet joined in "

Pinky
30-01-15, 03:01
Browner,I don't think there is anything in law to force a team to put 8 in the scrum when the player off the pitch is a forward. They have to have ste in the front 5 (at U 19) but if a FR was YC, the captain of the team with 14 can choose to lose a back (and pack with 8) or lose a forward (and pack with 7) and the team with 15 will either get to pack with 8 or an extra man out in the backs.

crossref
30-01-15, 10:01
A lot of stuff in that story not relevant to the scrum formation!

The crux of the matter is that at the moment you YC #20, the lock, there were still eight forwards on the pitch - the other seven in the scrum plus, as it happens, #4 the original lock, still on the pitch playing in the centre.

So they have eight forwards on the pitch, covering all the positions, so I agree with you they need to pack down with eight.

If they were to declare that #4 in fact had an injury and couldn't play in the scrum, then it does start to get complicated...


20.1 Forming a scrum

(e) In an 8 person scrum the formation must be 3-4-1, with the single player (normally the Number 8) shoving on the 2 locks. The locks must pack with their heads on either side of the hooker.

Exception: A team must have fewer than eight players in its scrum when the team cannot field eight suitably trained players in its scrum due to either the team not fielding a complete team, or a forward player being sent off or temporarily suspended for foul play, or a forward player leaving the field because of injury.

Even allowing for this exception, each team must always have at least five players in a scrum.

If a team is incomplete and it cannot field eight suitably trained players in its scrum, the scrum formation must be as follows:

If a team is without one forward player, then both teams must use a 3-4 formation (i.e. no No.8).

If a team is without two forward players, then both teams must use a 3-2-1 formation (i.e. no flankers).

If a team is without three forward players, then both teams must use a 3-2 formation (i.e. only front rows and locks).

When a normal scrum takes place, the players in the three front row positions and the two lock positions must have been suitably trained for these positions.

If a team cannot field such suitably trained players because:

either they are not available, or

a player in one of those five positions is injured or

has been sent off for Foul Play and no suitably trained replacement is available, then the referee must order uncontested scrums.

In an uncontested scrum, the teams do not compete for the ball. The team putting in the ball must win it. Neither team is allowed to push the other team away from the mark.

Browner
30-01-15, 10:01
Browner,I don't think there is anything in law to force a team to put 8 in the scrum when the player off the pitch is a forward. They have to have ste in the front 5 (at U 19) but if a FR was YC, the captain of the team with 14 can choose to lose a back (and pack with 8) or lose a forward (and pack with 7) and the team with 15 will either get to pack with 8 or an extra man out in the backs.

Thanks Pinky, but this subject has various angles to it, much debated on other RR threads, hense my reply to CrossRef.

Positions 6,7,8 are not STE requiring, so any player can play in those positions. Unable to field through lack of alternatives is different from unwilling or through choice.

Ultimately, I believe Law expects 8v8 if 'possible', often it is.

Browner
30-01-15, 10:01
The crux of the matter is that at the moment you YC #20, the lock, there were still eight forwards on the pitch - the other seven in the scrum plus, as it happens, #4 the original lock, still on the pitch playing in the centre.

So they have eight forwards on the pitch, covering all the positions, so I agree with you they need to pack down with eight.

If they were to declare that #4 in fact had an injury and couldn't play in the scrum, then it does start to get complicated...



IMO its not the inability to have 8 forwards "on the pitch" crossref, its " cannot field 8". If interchanges can be used to achieve this then they should.

crossref
30-01-15, 10:01
IMO its not the inability to have 8 forwards "on the pitch" crossref, its " cannot field 8". If interchanges can be used to achieve this then they should.

that's where you are on shakier ground as in that case you would NEVER have less than eight in the scrum, because
- if you have 5 STE players, anyone can play in the back row, so they can always make up the numbers
- if you don't have 5 STE players, then the scrum is uncontested, and then any player can play in any position, so again they could always have eight in the scrum.

but that's clearly not the intention of the Law makers, who do envisage 7v7 scrums.

I would have stuck to : eight forwards on the pitch, eight in the scrum. If they had said that #4 was too injured to play lock, then I would have shrugged and gone down to seven. It is, effectively, in the power of the offending team to choose 7 or 8.

FlipFlop
30-01-15, 10:01
If they were to declare that #4 in fact had an injury and couldn't play in the scrum, then it does start to get complicated...


Not really - just ask what specific injury he has that prevents a pushing contest in a scrum, but allows him to ruck and tackle safely? Basically any injury that prevents a player playing lock (or back row), means they should be off the field, as the action is not so different to rucking/mauling/tackling.......
Of course - if they immediately come up with an injury that could explain it - then great. But much more likely - he can either play in the forwards or he is off the park with an injury!

crossref
30-01-15, 10:01
Not really - just ask what specific injury he has that prevents a pushing contest in a scrum, but allows him to ruck and tackle safely? Basically any injury that prevents a player playing lock (or back row), means they should be off the field, as the action is not so different to rucking/mauling/tackling.......
Of course - if they immediately come up with an injury that could explain it - then great. But much more likely - he can either play in the forwards or he is off the park with an injury!

yes, it goes without saying that this 'injury' might end up with him leaving the pitch, but that doesn't make any difference, he'd be replaced with a back and then there are seven in the scrum, which is what they want to achieve.

which is my point : effectively the way the Law is written the offending team DO get a choice.
- I wouldn't attempt to force the anyone to play in a contested scrum, in any position, if they didn't want to (any more than I'd force them to play rugby if they didn't want to)
- In terms of forcing specific players to come on as replacements , I don't think the Law is on your side.

Browner
30-01-15, 11:01
U19 variation 20.1.(e)


If a team is incomplete and it cannot field eight suitably trained players in its scrum,

It then goes on to say .......

the players in the three front row positions and the two lock positions must have been suitably trained for these positions.

So,

Adult Rugby STE = positions 1,2,3

U19 STE = positions 1,2,3,4,5 or positions 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 ???? ?:confused:

crossref
30-01-15, 11:01
I think that's a red herring. Arguably in youth rugby every single player must have sutiable training for the level and type of match they are about to play - it's a duty of care. Eg it migh be negligent to put any player on the field in a contaxtr game who hadn't first had experience of tackling and being tackled in training.

what's important is that if any player said they didn't feel safe in the scrum (or indeed on the pitch) you wouldn't 'force' them to play (how could you anyway?)

FlipFlop
30-01-15, 12:01
yes, it goes without saying that this 'injury' might end up with him leaving the pitch, but that doesn't make any difference, he'd be replaced with a back and then there are seven in the scrum, which is what they want to achieve.

Yes, but they clearly thought he was better in that position than the player who would now be replacing him. So they lose on that. A team can always engineer the situation they want, the question is: Is it worth it? If they get it for nothing, then yes, if they have to give something up (like replace the "injured" player), then maybe not.

Browner
30-01-15, 17:01
Interchanges should be used to keep a scrum 8v8 safely, if at all possible, to do otherwise makes a mockery of the STE replacement on the touchline.

In my game, All Blue (incl coach) were happy for #8 to pack into the lock position vacated by the YCing so logically #8 must have been STE to do so, so why on earth are we then reducing the scrum to 7v7 instead of using an interchange to retain it as 8v8 , it can't be on safety grounds IF interchangable STEs are available, that just doesn't make common sense.

IF #8 had said we wasn't STE (as a lock- really?! ) then it could have been uncontesteds ( ignoring #4 in the centre for the moment) and that can't be the desired outcome if a Blue replacements bench full of STE's are stood available to play [ notwithstanding that some of them might already have participated earlier in the match and be part of a interchange share match plan]

tim White
30-01-15, 19:01
so why on earth are we then reducing the scrum to 7v7 instead of using an interchange to retain it as 8v8 ,



It keeps the scrum equal for safety reasons but if gives an deliberate extra man advantage in the backs to the non-offending team -even a number 8 can play in the backs, Shirley?

Browner
30-01-15, 23:01
It keeps the scrum equal for safety reasons but if gives an deliberate extra man advantage in the backs to the non-offending team -even a number 8 can play in the backs, Shirley?

It will Tim, but 7v6 in the backs is a better spatial exploitation missmatch than 8v7 ,

Backs defenders ( on a 65m wide pitch) each have c.10m to defend under my method, rather than c8.5m under yours, that means the non offending team get better opportunity to profit from my set up, which seems a fairer sanction consequence.

Roger?