Laws Question? Ask here!

Ben Bailey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123365118#Comment_123365118

Worth remembering that the scrum.is simply a method of restarting play. It came to pass that a contested scrum was an important feature of the game to many, but that was never it's purpose.

pickarooney

I presume the premise was that a ref doesn't want to give a penalty which will inevitably happen if he lets the dominant scrum force a collapse (or strongly incentivise the weaker scrum to crumple, if preferred).

On that point, for anyone who really understands scrummaging, how many scrum penalties are the result of a conscious decision to infringe rather than just obeying the laws of physics?

blackwhite

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123365525#Comment_123365525

Conscious decisions to infringe are more likely to result in illegal scrummaging penalties (like driving in, illegal bind etc.) as opposed to collapses.

You'll sometimes get an intentional collapse where a prop thinks that the ref will penalise the other side (i.e. if the other side have dopped a knee or hand to the ground) and the opponent brings it down to try and force the ref to make the call.

blackwhite

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123365330#Comment_123365330

That's not true - the purpose of the scrum has always been to restart play via a contest for possession (just as a line-out is a restart involving a contest for possession).

Law 19 explicitly states this:

19 Scrum

Principle

The purpose of a scrum is to restart play with a contest for possession after a minor infringement or stoppage

If you want to restart play without a contest for possession then you have a free kick.

Ben Bailey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123365712#Comment_123365712

'The purpose of a scrum is to restart play...'

The prize for winning the scrum contest is a chance of 3 points from the tee, or a chance of 5-7 points from deep in your opponents half.

Play is not restarted. A kick,either from hand or the tee, and a lineout or a restart after a penalty kick is attempted happens first.

If you have a game recorded, take a stopwatch (start at when whistle blows & stop when ball is back in play) & measure how much time is consumed by 'restarts'.

phog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123365816#Comment_123365816

But it's contestable, the opposition can get a turnover, win the ball against the head, win a FK or Penalty.

The point of the post you quoted but ignored in you repeating the purpose of a scrum is that it's to restart the game with a contest for possession.

blackwhite

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123365816#Comment_123365816

Seems you deliberately left out the 2nd part of the sentence

………with a contest for possession

If the best you can do is ignore half of the law, then you really don't have any argument to begin with.

The prize for winning a scrum is possession of the ball.

An award of FK or PK is a result of a team breaching some provision in Law 19, not the result of a team winning the scrum.

Perhaps you'd be better off trying Rugby League?

Lost Ormond

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123365816#Comment_123365816

The prize for winning the scrum contrst isnt simply a chance for 3/5/7 points. Maybe im wrong but youre trying to argue winning the scrum means the opposition is penalised.

Play is restarted. When the ball is played by eother of the 9s or the 8 of either side playing the ball.

StormForce13

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123365138#Comment_123365138

I'm talking about any game of rugby where the situation that I described above occurs.

My question is a reasonably simple one: under what Law can a referee instruct a scrum half to play the ball when a scrum is still 'live'.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123366827#Comment_123366827

19.26

Ben Bailey

https://www.munsterrugby.ie/2025/04/25/urc-statement/

Why are failed HIAs not regarded as a 'Contact Injury' ?.

Surely a player who fails a Head Injury Assessment has sustained an injury that means he cannot return to play.

Was his head injured, but he was not ?.

Does a prop, sidestepping in the style of Tadhg Furlong without contacting an opponent, who sustains an ankle injury have a 'Contact' injury, or not ?.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123388041#Comment_123388041

well the real answer to that is theres a situation where contact injuries lead to the team dropping a player.

for example if the first TH goes off with a red, yellow or contact injury…. if the replacement player goes off with a contact injury the team must drop a player.

i dont know why 2 contact injuries result in the team dropping a player, but thats the law. If a team is been minced and want to cheat by going to uncontested scrums, theyll just invent HIAs anway

Ben Bailey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123388077#Comment_123388077

It seems completely arbitrary.

In this most recent case one team benefitted from having uncontested scrums, but were disadvantaged by having to send off one of their players.

But my central question remains ;

Why is a Head Injury not a Contact Injury ?.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123388186#Comment_123388186

Because they don't want teams hiding head injuries for fear of losing a player.

blackwhite

I heard O'Driscoll talking about the first Bulls try as well - with the free kick that lead to the try being illegally played off the knee.

Supposedly Crowley questioned it, and Piardi claimed not to have seen it.

Regardless of Piardi seeing it, is this not something TMOs are allowed to call back for when it leads to a try?

From 30sec in video below - screenshot also

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhet28AaKRA&t=30s

Ben Bailey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123388292#Comment_123388292

But, if a team who are being consistently bested at scrum time have a (front row) player withdrawn for a HIA at their own team doctors request, (and who fails his HIA) and whose temporary replacement is then injured by 'Contact', that team remains at 15 players but no longer are at risk of being penalised at scrum time.

Of course, no team doctor would ever be complicit in such behaviour.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123388371#Comment_123388371

Yes, it is a potential issue.

phog

Scrum dominance was watered down when WR decided a team can't keep going for scrums from scrum penalties. You don't see as many scrums nor YCs to front row players since that law was changed.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123388371#Comment_123388371

but that decribes exactly why a HIA isnt a contact injury.

2 contact injuries and the team has to drop.

If a HIA was a contact injury, then its discourages players / doctors from diagnosing head injuries.

Ben Bailey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123388415#Comment_123388415

Unless, as in the example I gave of a dominated scrum, having a HIA followed by a Contact injury removes the jeopardy of continuing to be penalised / carded at scrums.

Shelflife

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123388371#Comment_123388371

It is a possibility, but it would have implications on the players ability to play the following week.

It would also impact a players ability to get insurance and their market value if they wanted to leave that club. A player with repeat failed HIAs would be much less attractive than a player with none.

If a player leaves the club and fins that his future is compromised because of bogus failed HIAs the club would find themselves in big trouble and the Doctor could lose his licence.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123388437#Comment_123388437

having a HIA followed by a Contact injury removes the jeopardy of continuing to be penalised

does that not simply encourge the second prop to drop to a knee and get taken off, thus creating uncontested scrums without any repercussion?

Ben Bailey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123388468#Comment_123388468

Yes, that's entirely true.

But in the context of a tightly contested match in the knockout (no pun intended) game with scores tied, the temptation to improve your chances would be hard for some to resist.

The HIA2 protocols also might allow a player to return sooner.

Miley Byrne

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123388468#Comment_123388468

I think Ben's point is if the original injury suffered to the prop is a HIA, then what is to stop his replacement feigning an(for example) ankle injury if his scrum is under pressure? The HIA would be legit. Nobody would be in big trouble regarding the head injury.

It's the sequence of events here which is crucial.

aloooof

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123389005#Comment_123389005

What's the alternative, tho? If the law is designed not to disadvantage a team from reporting a HIA, it seems to me that both have to be taken into consideration, and there's little that can be done about the sequence of events?

It's imperfect, but I don't see an alternative.

aloooof

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123388314#Comment_123388314

Probably for the Munster thread rather than here, but ya, you can see Crowley questioning it and pointing to his knee right before kick-off after the conversion. Piardi clearly points at this foot a number of times and tells Crowley to get on with the kick off.

Miley Byrne

Oh I can't see an alternative. I was just following up on Shelflife's scenario above where he was saying how unlikely HIAs would be feigned (I agree). But my point was that if the HIA happens first then could I see contact injuries being faked if that team's scrum was under the pump late in a big knockout game? Probably not, but where there are high stakes I wouldn't rule it out either. There wouldn't be long term negative effects on a player's career etc in that scenario.

There is no perfect solution as far as I see it at the moment

blackwhite

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123389103#Comment_123389103

I'm not a Munster supporter, and the point of the post isn't to complain about the decision per se - I'm more interested in the question it raises on TMO protocols.

Is a technical point like this, i.e. a free kick (or indeed a penalty, scrum or line-out) taken improperly and resulting in a score, reviewable or not by the TMO?

aloooof

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123389161#Comment_123389161

Open to correction, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be.

blackwhite

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123389200#Comment_123389200

That’s what I would have thought - but when it was such a blatant error, and with players questioning it, I’m wondering is there a protocol reason that the TMO didn’t step in.

edit - looking at