Avoiding the uncontested scrum trap

I have no idea whether Wales played cute at the weekend. In his press conference, Gatland was adamant that Brown had cramped up, and there may indeed be footage shows him suffering before he was subbed off.

Whatever actually took place, it seems undeniable that Georgia weren't able to use the penalty and sin bin advantage as they wanted. In fact, they probably would have preferred to play a fifteen man Welsh side with contestable scrums.

This scenario comes about when a front row player gets sent to the sin bin, and there is no fit replacement for him. I hope someone can correct me, if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that play just continues with that player in the bin, until a scrum is awarded (It might come instantly, if the attacking side wanting to scrum the penalty).

A full pack of eight is needed even for uncontested scrums, so someone has to be subbed to let the extra forward on. However, if a fit front row replacement isn't available, then I think a side can send a back five player on, which is potentially a handier addition when trying to defend while a man down.

It just seems like a glaring inconsistency in the game if a penalty advantage turns out to be so disadvantageous. I've heard a couple of suggestions:

- As the sinbinned player is fit, he should come back on, or stay on, because his absence is the root of the problem, and someone else go off. Not a bad idea, but you'd need to work out what happens in the case of another infringement. Can he get a red with a second straight yellow in this period, and would that mean another player going off? If he stays on, can he get a third yellow or more by serial offending during the ten minutes?

- If a team can't field a legal scrum because of a sinbinning, there should be an immediate points penalty. There's already a sanction (at least in Test rugby) where a team forfeits a match if it can't put out a 23 with full front row cover. That topic came up at the last World Cup, when a couple of squads only named two hookers, which could have become an issue if one of them turned an ankle during the warm-up, with no time to call in a replacement.

Not sure about either or these.

Here is an alternative.

Have uncontested scrums but only the penalized team have to put eight men in. The innocent team can just have seven meaning they have eight men in their back line compared to the offending side's six giving them a double overlap or an overlap on both sides.

Where was this article when France engaged in the dark arts?

mikey_dragon wrote:Where was this article when France engaged in the dark arts?

Not the same situation. It was Wales who got the yellow card. France claimed an HIA, so they could replace a player. That could happen any time in a match, and needs a different policing approach.

In the Georgia case, they were awarded an advantage which arguably put them in a worse position.

Im just surprised NZ didn't invent it. Seems like the sort of cheat they would definitely be behind.

When you can't field a front row member due to 2 injuries you go down to 14 men. In this situation bring in a similar rule. One goes off injured another carded they go down to 13. It doesn't directly stop uncontested scrums but makes sure the team want to avoid it.

Rugby Fan wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Where was this article when France engaged in the dark arts?

Not the same situation. It was Wales who got the yellow card. France claimed an HIA, so they could replace a player. That could happen any time in a match, and needs a different policing approach.

In the Georgia case, they were awarded an advantage which arguably put them in a worse position.

 In fairness to the referee he then gave Georgia the opportunity to change their decision to pack a scrum, once Wales put the game into "Golden Oldie" scrums. Most referees dont have that vision.

Exiledinborders wrote:Here is an alternative.

Have uncontested scrums but only the penalized team have to put eight men in. The innocent team can just have seven meaning they have eight men in their back line compared to the offending side's six giving them a double overlap or an overlap on both sides.

 Why even stop at seven?

Rugby Fan wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Where was this article when France engaged in the dark arts?

Not the same situation. It was Wales who got the yellow card. France claimed an HIA, so they could replace a player. That could happen any time in a match, and needs a different policing approach.

In the Georgia case, they were awarded an advantage which arguably put them in a worse position.

Bullcrap.

It's all the same. Except now all of a sudden it's a major talking point because it's Wales.

Just for the record, I do not agree with it, never have condoned it, and never will, but where was the outrage 6 months ago ?

It's hard to wholly condemn either as you can't prove lack of head knock or injury. For me atonio said he'd tweaked his back and so looked really dodgy to me but how can you argue against a hia? This one; well should cramp even be considered an injury?

The point of the thread though is surely what can be done. to prevent it? You can't really but you can make sure if it happens the team is penalised.

There are two things here.

The more important one, which the game has needed for a while, is some form of sanction that makes faking an injury to go to uncontested scrums an unattractive option. I quite like the idea of the team making the substitution having to have more people in the scrum. I was also wondering about whether the attacking side might be allowed to march the scrum, say, 2m with all players staying bound until the ball is out and away.

The second aspect is comparing the French game and the Welsh game. Both instances looked a bit underhand, but the material difference is that HIA is a lot harder to criticise than cramp.

The difficulty is that the potential consequences of not taking head injuries seriously are so bad for both the individual involved and the game as a whole that we have to take them seriously and if in doubt take a player off for HIA.

Sometimes that works against a team - as when Underhill was sent off for an HIA at the insistence of the ref and medical staff (at least, that's how it looked in the stadium) - and sometimes it can be open to abuse, as in the French example.

But the downsides of not allowing HIA, or of penalising teams when one is required, are so bad that we accept the narrow set of circumstances in which there's potential for abuse.

Point of clarity; with a sin bin, that team (and opposition) can choose to put 7 men in the scrum.

What a cynical underhanded tactic from Wales, lol. Teams that do this chicken-sh1t nonsense should be forced to take the functioning prop off and play with 14 for the rest of the game.

LordDowlais wrote:Just for the record, I do not agree with it, never have condoned it, and never will, but where was the outrage 6 months ago ?

Here http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/39488240

Here http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/six-nations-authorities-probe-controversial-late-replacement-frances-wales-a7665191.html

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536078

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536070

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536364

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536432

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p350-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3538413

Such a victim mentality some of you guys have.

Ebop take it you didn't see it then. Or read about it. Francis was sin binned so already down to 14.

Nah I didn’t 7.5. Life’s too short to watch Wales hamfist their way through a game vs Georgia. Uncontested scrums = lose a player. Threat of going down to 13 would sort this crap out.

Agreed you don't contest a scrum you lose a man - simple

Scottrf wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Just for the record, I do not agree with it, never have condoned it, and never will, but where was the outrage 6 months ago ?

Here http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/39488240

Here http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/six-nations-authorities-probe-controversial-late-replacement-frances-wales-a7665191.html

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536078

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536070

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536364

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536432

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p350-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3538413

Such a victim mentality some of you guys have.

Only had a chance to have a look at the first link, so will look more later. But the sentiment in that link was why France weren't just awarded a penalty try. Nothing about France taking a player off.

Griff wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Just for the record, I do not agree with it, never have condoned it, and never will, but where was the outrage 6 months ago ?

Here http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/39488240

Here http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/six-nations-authorities-probe-controversial-late-replacement-frances-wales-a7665191.html

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536078

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536070

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536364

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536432

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p350-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3538413

Such a victim mentality some of you guys have.

Only had a chance to have a look at the first link, so will look more later.  But the sentiment in that link was why France weren't just awarded a penalty try.  Nothing about France taking a player off.

No it wasn't.

Scottrf wrote:

Griff wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Just for the record, I do not agree with it, never have condoned it, and never will, but where was the outrage 6 months ago ?

Here http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/39488240

Here http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/six-nations-authorities-probe-controversial-late-replacement-frances-wales-a7665191.html

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536078

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536070

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536364

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536432

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p350-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3538413

Such a victim mentality some of you guys have.

Only had a chance to have a look at the first link, so will look more later.  But the sentiment in that link was why France weren't just awarded a penalty try.  Nothing about France taking a player off.

No it wasn't.

Sorry, meant the first 606 link. We're talking about the outrage 'on here', I.e. 606. The reaction seems to have been very different to both incidents.

Depends what you mean by outrage of course. Seems to be less now but there are sod all Georgians on the site.

Griff wrote:Sorry, meant the first 606 link. We're talking about the outrage 'on here', I.e. 606. The reaction seems to have been very different to both incidents.

You're still wrong, and there was plenty of outrage about what the French did. The first link is a French fan who was doubting what France did!

Maybe you're talking about the 3rd v2 link? (convenient if that' that's the only one you had time for), which questions multiple incidents, including the Slimani one.

Scottrf wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Just for the record, I do not agree with it, never have condoned it, and never will, but where was the outrage 6 months ago ?

Here http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/39488240

Here http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/six-nations-authorities-probe-controversial-late-replacement-frances-wales-a7665191.html

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536078

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536070

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536364

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536432

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p350-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3538413

Such a victim mentality some of you guys have.

That was the match thread, there was no thread put up especially for it. Like this one

LordDowlais wrote:That was the match thread, there was no thread put up especially for it.

So what? That's not no outrage. People had somewhere to talk about it.

Play the victim if you want but it's nonsense and pathetic.

Been more vocal.criticisms of slimani and his coaches on twitter. He's done/had this done on a couple more occasions for his club as well I believe. As it's the second notable time there's been a question at international level and no proof it's bound to come up as a topic if conversation.

Scottrf wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:That was the match thread, there was no thread put up especially for it.

So what? That's not no outrage. People had somewhere to talk about it.

Play the victim if you want but it's nonsense and pathetic.

Here you go, it is all being talked about on here:-

https://www.606v2.com/t64020p650-wales-thread-continued-2017-18-season

But you as always would rather carry on sticking the knife into it and twisting. Also, look back at the original post, the creator only speaks about what Wales did on the weekend.

If he was so up in arms about what is going on, then why not mention any other incidents ? Like what happened in the 6N.

He has one line about Wales where he barely even questioned the player or team, another about the lack of Georgian advantage then multiple paragraphs about the laws.

It's not sticking the knife in you absolute queen.

Scottrf wrote:

Griff wrote:Sorry, meant the first 606 link. We're talking about the outrage 'on here', I.e. 606. The reaction seems to have been very different to both incidents.

You're still wrong, and there was plenty of outrage about what the French did. The first link is a French fan who was doubting what France did!

Maybe you're talking about the 3rd v2 link? (convenient if that' that's the only one you had time for), which questions multiple incidents, including the Slimani one.

I've just read the first link again. There's no outrage. No-one calling France disgusting cheats. No one saying they brought the game into disrepute. No one saying to throw the book at them. Whocares says the incident looked a bit suspect. The rest is about Barnes bottling it, or the hooter should go automatically on 85mins, etc. I'll get to the rest when I'm back. Hoping that's where the outrage against France is

Griff wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Griff wrote:Sorry, meant the first 606 link. We're talking about the outrage 'on here', I.e. 606. The reaction seems to have been very different to both incidents.

You're still wrong, and there was plenty of outrage about what the French did. The first link is a French fan who was doubting what France did!

Maybe you're talking about the 3rd v2 link? (convenient if that' that's the only one you had time for), which questions multiple incidents, including the Slimani one.

I've just read the first link again. There's no outrage. No-one calling France disgusting cheats. No one saying they brought the game into disrepute. No one saying to throw the book at them. Whocares says the incident looked a bit suspect. The rest is about Barnes bottling it, or the hooter should go automatically on 85mins, etc. I'll get to the rest when I'm back. Hoping that's where the outrage against France is

"I have no idea whether Wales played cute at the weekend. In his press conference, Gatland was adamant that Brown had cramped up, and there may indeed be footage shows him suffering before he was subbed off."

Outrage/disgusting cheats?

Also Scottrf. You need to sort yourself out, all those links are to the same page, I thought I was losing my marbles when clicking on each of those.

Anyway, to see if it held any credence, I decided to skim through most of that match thread, and there is nothing on there like what is being said now.

Yes there are a few rants, but most of that thread is Irish posters sticking the knife into Wayne Barnes, and people complaining for not giving a penalty try.

Mikey is screaming blue murder on the thread.

LordDowlais wrote:Also Scottrf. You need to sort yourself out, all those links are to the same page, I thought I was losing my marbles when clicking on each of those.

Same page but it directs you to individual posts...

The outrage is worse there than anything on this thread. If you can't see it, whatever.

The 385minute game?

No nothing suspect about that game in the slightest.

LordDowlais wrote:If he was so up in arms about what is going on, then why not mention any other incidents ? Like what happened in the 6N.

As already stated the 6Ns incident did not lead to an uncontested scrum.

The original post is only a dig at Wales for anyone who desperately seeks to find offence. Sparked by a single incident it asks whether we need to fix an issue with uncontested scrums and whether a side can actually benefit from them. Taking the Welsh management at their word, as there is nothing else we can do, it would certainly appear that due to injury Wales did gain a benefit by the scrums going uncontested. It would be good if we could debate that rather than descending into name calling and hissy fits.

A few years ago there was a major issue with this in the AP leading to (from memory) 7 of teh first 8 rounds having matches that required uncontested scrums. Based on this story looking at the issue in France it may have been more than a few years ago : http://en.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/story/101443.html.

Now interestingly the law changes that came about mean that:

.....should a team lose all their available front row replacements then uncontested scrums will take place but the side opting out of the set-piece will not be able to replace the injured player - forcing them to continue with only fourteen players. This is a change to the existing Laws and ensures that a team going to uncontested scrums does not gain an advantage as was the case previously.

Of course at the weekend this was negated by a hooker coming on.




PS For what it is worth - I thought France's tactics were pretty disgraceful back in the 6Ns and the game descended into a farce. A point I made at the time.

LT you only go down a man if it's 2 injured. As francis was sin binned currently you don't go down a further man.

So London Tiger, just to clarify, just has we were told after the 6n's game, neither team did anything wrong ?

You can prove neither but doubt both. But also want a change to the laws around either case. Don't remember anyone who felt that atonio was playing said it wasn't wrong either.

Scottrf wrote:Same page but it directs you to individual posts...

So why post ALL those links ? Did you do it to try and emphasis your agenda ?

Scottrf wrote:The outrage is worse there than anything on this thread. If you can't see it, whatever.

If we are just going by that one page, then I am afraid you are talking rubbish again, there is no ranting about cheating on that page. Only about Wayne Barnes and penalty tries.

Read the thread and you find people swearing at cheating.

LordDowlais wrote:So London Tiger, just to clarify, just has we were told after the 6n's game, neither team did anything wrong ?

Officially France did nothing wrong. Unless WR decides otherwise neither did Wales.

In my opinion France were guilty as sin. Cannot comment on Wales as did not watch the incident.


France benefited by being able to introduce a stronger scrummager (which Barnes partially negated by refusing to give them a PT), Wales benefited by going to uncontested scrums (which Reynal partially negated by allowing Georgia to change their mind and opt for the lineout)

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Same page but it directs you to individual posts...

So why post ALL those links ? Did you do it to try and emphasis your agenda ?

Scottrf wrote:The outrage is worse there than anything on this thread. If you can't see it, whatever.

If we are just going by that one page, then I am afraid you are talking rubbish again, there is no ranting about cheating on that page. Only about Wayne Barnes and penalty tries.

Penalty tries usually involve cheating though so................. technically............. it's a page about cheating, Lord.

Just realised how old I am, and how fast time flies. Would appear the few years I mentioned earlier was 12!!!!!

This was the most famous case at the start of that season where we had a plethora of games blighted by uncontested scrums:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2005/sep/26/rugbyunion.sport3

LordDowlais wrote:So why post ALL those links ? Did you do it to try and emphasis your agenda ?

It's not an agenda. I haven't even mentioned Wales vs Georgia. Just proving that you're wrong. You can claim otherwise but just make yourself look silly.

Somehow to you "Surprised no one has mentioned the blatant cheating that took place by removing Antonio who can't scrummage for slimani who can."

isn't outrage at cheating but "I have no idea whether Wales played cute at the weekend. In his press conference, Gatland was adamant that Brown had cramped up, and there may indeed be footage shows him suffering before he was subbed off." is.

Unbelievable.

Scottrf wrote:Somehow to you "Surprised no one has mentioned the blatant cheating that took place by removing Antonio who can't scrummage for slimani who can."

isn't outrage at cheating but "I have no idea whether Wales played cute at the weekend. In his press conference, Gatland was adamant that Brown had cramped up, and there may indeed be footage shows him suffering before he was subbed off." is.

Unbelievable.

So come on, say it. What are you insinuating ?

That you're a one eyed muppet with a victim mentality. Did I not make it clear?

This is a funny thread

Good going, guys.

Scottrf wrote:That you're a one eyed muppet with a victim mentality. Did I not make it clear?

Nope, you are the one being made to look like a muppet, and it shows by the fact that you have had to resort to name calling. It's not the first time I have picked you up on your anti Welsh agenda on here either.

So come on, care to back the comments you made up with a proper insinuation ?

You're more bothered about trying to make an anti Welsh argument than discuss a relevant point on potentially changing the laws?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Where was this article when France engaged in the dark arts?

Not the same situation. It was Wales who got the yellow card. France claimed an HIA, so they could replace a player. That could happen any time in a match, and needs a different policing approach.

In the Georgia case, they were awarded an advantage which arguably put them in a worse position.

 In fairness to the referee he then gave Georgia the opportunity to change their decision to pack a scrum, once Wales put the game into "Golden Oldie" scrums. Most referees dont have that vision.

Did the ref not get it wrong in the first place though?

Wales made a tactical replacement and not an injury replacement, do the rules not state the player has to return?

Maybe the rules need to put the onus on the coaches etc to inform officials if a player can't return and anyone who hasn't has to either send the player on or go down to 13 as some suggested

One of the posts Scott linked to:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I'm surprised Barnes didnt award more pens/cards as the French certainly had dominance in the scrum when Slimani came on. The problem would have been going to uncontested scrums which wouldnt have really helped.

Fair play to Wales for bringing Francis on though and making it a contest. The Atonio incident was a complete joke, shame on you France!