Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 73

Thread: STE to hook, Wasps Bath

      
  1. #1

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    18,652

    Default STE to hook, Wasps Bath

    An odd one

    https://www.facebook.com/38472599859...7889695274528/

    Don't they have to specify in advance who can cover which position?

    And at the end of it all, did they go down to 14 ? Should they have done ? What's the rule in the premiership now?
    Last edited by crossref; 01-09-20 at 07:09.

  2. #2

    Referees in England
    Phil E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Staffordshire and Royal Navy
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    22 Jan 08
    Posts
    15,027
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: STE to hook, Wasps Bath

    More unusual than odd.

    They had a series of early injuries meaning they used all their required spare front row.
    When the second hooker went off injured the only spare front row was a prop, not a hooker.
    The coach said he had hooked before so they were good to go.
    The player said he hadn't hooked for 3 years and wasn't confident, so WB had no option but to go uncontested.

    They didn't go down to 14 becasue the player that caused the uncontested went off with a head injury, which exempts them from loosing a player.

    Of course a cynical person might think that becasue Wasps were getting stuffed in the scrums it was to their advantage to go uncontested. I am certain (having watched the collision) that the injury was genuine, however the reserve player looked at his second rows (off camera) who might have just reminded him that they were suffering in the scrums, and it was at this point that he said, I am no longer confident to hook. I couldn't possibly comment that Wasps have done something similar before (google it).

    At the end of the day however player safety is paramount, which is exactly what WB said.

    Follow my Award Winning blog The Rugby Ref


  3. #3

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    18,652

    Default Re: STE to hook, Wasps Bath

    WB was fine

    I am questioning Wasps

    Doesn't the Wasps team sheet state definitively who is capable of playing today in each position?

    So

    - if Tom West was listed as cover for hooker, then it was his withdrawal that caused uncontested, so should have been down to 14

    - BUT if Tom West was NOT listed as cover for hooker then he cannot move to hooker (this was established when Steve Thompson was recovering from injury and playing in a team at flanker, and not listed as a replacement hooker, so couldn't be asked to hook). And his coach should not have suggested it

  4. #4

    Referees in England
    Phil E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Staffordshire and Royal Navy
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    22 Jan 08
    Posts
    15,027
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: STE to hook, Wasps Bath

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    - if Tom West was listed as cover for hooker, then it was his withdrawal that caused uncontested, so should have been down to 14
    Was he the replacement hooker who went off injured?
    If so it was as the result of a head injury, so they stay at 15 (in the same was that if a player goes off injured as a result of foul play they stay at 15).

    If you said a head injury put them down to 14 then teams/players might be tempted to ignore the injury, which could be catastrophic.

    Follow my Award Winning blog The Rugby Ref


  5. #5

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    18,652

    Default Re: STE to hook, Wasps Bath

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil E View Post
    Was he the replacement hooker who went off injured?
    If so it was as the result of a head injury, so they stay at 15 (in the same was that if a player goes off injured as a result of foul play they stay at 15).

    If you said a head injury put them down to 14 then teams/players might be tempted to ignore the injury, which could be catastrophic.
    well, I don't know what was on the team sheet, but if the team sheet had West as one of three hookers then it seem to be
    Starting hooker went off for injury
    #2 hooker went off for head injury
    #3 hooker said he wasn't willing/ able to hook

    so it would be #3 (West) who caused uncontested, and the team should be at 14.

  6. #6

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,504

    Default Re: STE to hook, Wasps Bath

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil E View Post
    More unusual than odd.

    They had a series of early injuries meaning they used all their required spare front row.
    When the second hooker went off injured the only spare front row was a prop, not a hooker.
    The coach said he had hooked before so they were good to go.
    The player said he hadn't hooked for 3 years and wasn't confident, so WB had no option but to go uncontested.

    They didn't go down to 14 becasue the player that caused the uncontested went off with a head injury, which exempts them from loosing a player.

    Of course a cynical person might think that becasue Wasps were getting stuffed in the scrums it was to their advantage to go uncontested. I am certain (having watched the collision) that the injury was genuine, however the reserve player looked at his second rows (off camera) who might have just reminded him that they were suffering in the scrums, and it was at this point that he said, I am no longer confident to hook. I couldn't possibly comment that Wasps have done something similar before (google it).

    At the end of the day however player safety is paramount, which is exactly what WB said.
    ...and the last thing an inexperienced hooker should be doing is packing down in the front row of a scrum that is getting handed its arse... that could also be catastrophic.
    Last edited by Ian_Cook; 01-09-20 at 12:09.
    "You can Google for information, but you can't Google for understanding"
    - Jay Windley

  7. #7

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,504

    Default Re: STE to hook, Wasps Bath

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    well, I don't know what was on the team sheet, but if the team sheet had West as one of three hookers then it seem to be
    Starting hooker went off for injury
    #2 hooker went off for head injury
    #3 hooker said he wasn't willing/ able to hook

    so it would be #3 (West) who caused uncontested, and the team should be at 14.
    AFAIK, there is no requirement in Law for a team to have two back-up hookers.
    "You can Google for information, but you can't Google for understanding"
    - Jay Windley

  8. #8

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    18,652

    Default Re: STE to hook, Wasps Bath

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post
    AFAIK, there is no requirement in Law for a team to have two back-up hookers.
    Agreed - but they may choose to have, and
    - if they list two back up hookers they can't suddenly decide one of them isn't really available (unless injured obv)
    - conversely, if they list one back up hooker, they can't suddenly declare they have a second

    The principle being that teams can't decide on field who is / isn't STE as this enables to them to tailor the declarations according to whether they are being mullered in the scrums or not ...

    So still come back to
    - if West was not listed as hooker cover, it was totally wrong for the coach to suggest him
    - if West WAS listed as a second back up, then his inablility to hook caused uncontested scrums

  9. #9

    Advises in England
    OB..'s Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Glos & District
    Grade
    Adviser (grass roots)
    Join Date
    07 Oct 04
    Posts
    22,729

    Default Re: STE to hook, Wasps Bath

    Do they actually specify the position as hooker? Down in the weeds the team sheet is merely marked FR (Front Row).

    I do remember some years ago Olivier Azam was playing prop for Gloucester. He had played hooker for France A couple of years previously, but not recently. He claimed was not currently training as hooker, so scrums went uncontested.
    He trudg’d along unknowing what he sought,
    And whistled as he went, for want of thought.
    The Referee by John Dryden

  10. #10

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    18,652

    Default Re: STE to hook, Wasps Bath

    Quote Originally Posted by OB.. View Post
    Do they actually specify the position as hooker? Down in the weeds the team sheet is merely marked FR (Front Row).

    I do remember some years ago Olivier Azam was playing prop for Gloucester. He had played hooker for France A couple of years previously, but not recently. He claimed was not currently training as hooker, so scrums went uncontested.
    i believe - at pro levels - yes. Exactly to avoid any shenanigens.

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
  •