The Italian backrow said he had played hooker before. The referee wouldn’t allow it though. Can only assume from that it has to be registered. Otherwise player x could say yeah I’ll go in there to avoid uncontested scrums, without experience. Then the referee is in a dangerous position of having to make that call.
Subs can cover multiple positions but at this level you must have 3 players to cover the replacement of each of the starting front row and if for example a loosehead prop was replaced tactically in a game or a loosehead on bench was nominated before the game as also able to play tight head and the starting and replacement tight heads were out/off then they could play.
its not about preventing a team having 3 TH and replacing them whenever as laws allow you do that with 2 props right now
Its not a medical cert to play each position but the scrummaging is very different in each and you really do need to be fairly experienced to play both at an elite level.
you have to declare who front row replacements are at every level of game. be it u14 or elite pros. you declare when handing in team sheets to match organisers/officials.
so basically the reason for that rule - is to stop any gamesmanship from teams who are weak at scrummaging from gaining any advantage to a non-contested scrum, yes?
AFAIK you can name more players as “qualified” to play in front row positions - I’ve often started games in 2nd row or at 8 and been designated as eligible to play at 1 or 3, even with us having replacements for both on the bench, and designated also.
Few times where we’ve have starting prop play 40, replacement play 20, and then I’ve moved from 5 to 3 for final 20
I wonder did Italy make a mistake by not declaring before the match that they could cover hooker with other players?
I would think a tighthead prop should be able to play hooker (the actual skill of hooking the ball in the scrum seems to be gone from the game), they both have to scrummage against two players, the loosehead prop is probably the most different in that they are only engaging with one player, the other team’s tighthead.
Also, if indeed that backrow were capable of playing hooker at that level, they should have declared him as cover for that position, albeit maybe it’s been overlooked by teams in general up to now and that may change teams’ preparation after this.
Correct. Without such a law in place, a team can load their bench with back row players or backs and simply sub them on for the front row if their scrums are costing them possession during the game. Scrummaging is integral to the game and there is a clear discrepancy in law if a team can be afforded an advantage over their opposition by dodging them without some sort of sanction. Although it was a hard situation on Italy the issue only arose when they lost one hooker to injury and another to ill discipline.
Yes effectively they did. I’m trying to remember what the game was but it happened before. That one of the props ended up going into hooker, as he had played there before. They mentioned at the time he’d been nominated as a sub hooker as well as prop.
I also vaguely remember Ireland playing in a game previously which ended up with uncontested scrums. Think it was in the 90’s though before this law came in.
One thought I had watching the match yesterday was, why is it the rule that the team causing uncontested scums loses a player for the rest of the match? I think there's no real reason to disallow a player joining back into the play as soon as the next restart of play takes place that isn't being restarted with a scrum.
So, for a scrum, you'd be down a player, but at the next stoppage in play the player would come back on until the next scrum were called. Seems that would be a bit fairer anyway.
i could see italy's annoyance - i mean the first scrummager was genuinely injured and the second was sent off it wasn't like they were up to any shenanigans😶
Looking at the technique here - in many of the tackles he seems to be dropping to his knees before executing the tackling.
Is he not in beach of Law 13-3:
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/13
A player on the ground in the field of play, without the ball is out of the game and must:
c) Not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent.
I get that it’s not one that a referee is ever likely to call, but once knees are down then strictly speaking is he not “on the ground” under he laws, and in breach of the above?
I don't think that going to ground in the act of tackling is what is meant by that law, probably not in the spirit of the law as it stands
Ah here, that's exactly the kind of safe tackling technique we're supposed to be encouraging with all the cards.
I have to admit I expected to see 3 minutes of Lydiate throwing himself shoulder first at a series of shins with no attempt to wrap so I was pleasantly surprised.
Not necessarily the exact technique.
If injury prevention is the sole focus, ideally you want all tackles at waist height. Knee level tackles bring a higher risk of cruciate injuries if the moment of impact coincides with the foot being planted on the ground. Waist level is really the ideal technique.
Theres plenty of his tackles that are picture-perfect chip tackles; propels himself low and if his knees do hit the ground it’s al part of the tackle movement and ultimately incidental.
Theres also a good number where he appears to drop to one or both knees, and then propels himself forward from his knees - those are the ones that to me appear borderline illegal (and also more likely to result in knee or ankle injuries to the tackled player, as the direction of impact is horizontal as opposed to downwards).
Any thoughts on matt williams article about referees and the laws etc from todays irish times
It’s an interesting slant suggesting the refs are disconnected from the players, have become too powerful and determine the outcome of games. I’m not sure where it was leading to, a regulatory body or the ability of another match official to overrule referees?
One things for sure the Aussies come up with interesting ways to develop the game. Some people like them others don’t. I like the idea of 50-22 and goal line drop out for held up balls. Although I’m not sure that was entirely their doing.
I think refs can go on power trips sometimes but they are in an unthankful position of having half the viewers/crowd never pleased with their decisions. Some of the stuff said on Irish rugby websites is defamatory and outright slander. They have to make decisions and if they blink they can get it wrong. Those snap decisions are unenviable.
I will say Williams has a point on getting the game more fluid with less penalties. There can be too many laws and it will litigate the teams out of being able to play the game. Interesting to see if anything comes of that Reynal decision and something is done.
Williams has always been a disconnected moan bag. So coming out with that stuff isn’t really surprising. It’s a growing trend from the SH to moan about and attack referees. From the games gone soft brigade. It’s not “in the spirit of the game” to cynically waste time. The I’ve not spoken to any former players, who agree with this. To try lend gravitas to his view point. Is like an argument a child would use.
The term stealing a living is used around here quite often. Both as a coach and a pundit, I can’t think of anyone it’s more accurate for than Mutt.
Under what law can a referee instruct a scrumhalf to use the ball when it's at the back of a scrum and the pack appears to be moving slowly forward?
It happens far too often for my liking and appears to be done either because referees are reluctant to award scrum penalties or because they don't want to have to reset the scrum. I can understand their motives, but all too often it's a disadvantage to the attacking team who want to continue driving forward.
They're only supposed to call 'use it' when it becomes stationary. I can't say I can think of examples where a team driving forward has been told to use it.
The only times I can think of refs saying use it. Is when the scrum collapses and the ball is at the 8’s feet. So they don’t want to give a penalty. Can’t remember any instances of a ref saying that while the scrum is still up and moving.
The ref will call "use it" when the scrum is stationary.
If the scrum begins to move forward again, that's considered 'using it'
You’re a real hero coming on here to defame Matt Williams from behind your screen in such a personalised way. None of what you said is true. Williams’ tenure in Leinster was its very hay day and he did anything but steal a living. I find his articles articulate and insightful.
Not as far as I know. Use it means you have to get it out of the scrum.
When the scrum is stationary and the ball has been available at the back of the scrum for three-five seconds, the referee calls “use it”. The team must then play the ball out of the scrum immediately. Sanction: Scrum.
Good for you. If you find his opinions insightful and that’s what they are opinions”. Then that’s great. Personally I would expect a higher journalistic standard than. No one that I have talked to. As the basis for an argument from a paid journalist. You just clearly have a very low bar.
As for his coaching. The saying those that can’t do teach comes to mind. Though in this case it’s more talk, than teach. That’s why he hasn’t been considered for a coaching job in a long time.
It’s always the same on here and Irish message boards. Geniuses insulting journalists and refs and believing their opinion from behind a pseudonym is paramount. Good to know you think it’s a low bar. I’ll continue reading them with aplomb. You can rip people apart on here from behind your screen in total anonymity.
Totally agree on all that.
Ref may deem scrum to have stopped or not be progressing so will call use it to not have another stoppage and another scrum. Ifs nothing to do with not wanting to have more scrum penalties.
I asked what Law allowed the ref to decide that he didn't want to reset the scrum. The attacking team shouldn't be put at a disadvantage because the ref doesn't want to do his job.
This one since you want to be so aggressive about it.
Law 20.4 THE TEAM THROWING THE BALL INTO THE SCRUM
(e) When a scrum remains stationary and the ball does not emerge immediately a further scrum is ordered at the place of the stoppage. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage.
(f) When a scrum becomes stationary and does not start moving immediately, the ball must emerge immediately. If it does not, a further scrum will be ordered. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage.
few instructions to officials coming with refs meant to strictly adhere to timings around kicks at goal
Also will be less reliance on TMO. Less involvement from water carriers
RFU lowering tackle height at all levels
To support player welfare, the RFU Council agreed on Monday 16th January to lower the height of the tackle across the community game from July 1 2023.
https://www.englandrugby.com/news/article/rfu-council-approves-lowering-of-the-tackle-height-across-community-rugby-in-england-2023
i dont know how they square this circle:
BBC rugby union correspondent Chris Jones
I understand the trial saw approximately a 67% increase in concussions, from an average of 0.6 a game in the regular Championship season, to 1 per match in the Championship Cup.
The number of concussions from upright tackles did fall markedly - as was hoped - but there was a drastic increase in concussive incidents around the breakdown, when both the ball carrier and tackler were bent at the waist.
i can see this being an unmitigated disaster
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/540d8cb314832a1dac2dc9192a568ed1.svg)
