this season we have seen 2 out of 3 matches with uncontested scrumms.
The regulations state that each team must include 2 Front row players amongst the subs.
It could be 2 props or 1 prop, 1 hooker.
Tigers only had one prop on the bench so when both props went off injured, it had to go to uncontested.
Mike Ruddock said after the game that the IRB should look at expanding the subs to eight and each team should have 2 props and a hooker. This would reduce the number of matches where scrums go uncontested.
Any thoughts?
Front Row substitutes
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
Mr. Moderator Sir,
Uncontested scrums are a blight on our beautiful game - a travesty of all that is just and honourable.
All teams at all times should be capable of fieldibng a front row. Else they sacrifice the game. Do not increase the bench size though - just llow substutes (for front3) not on the bench.
Uncontested scrums are a blight on our beautiful game - a travesty of all that is just and honourable.
All teams at all times should be capable of fieldibng a front row. Else they sacrifice the game. Do not increase the bench size though - just llow substutes (for front3) not on the bench.
Bill - I agree that it is a travesty and any solutions that could remove it is very welcome.
By increasing the bench to eight the regulations will state that 3 front row players will have to be included.
This would be the same for all teams. It would be interesting to know how many other games in the Guiness have been affected by uncontested scrums.
I believe that it would be better for the game. Perhaps it will be discussed soon.
By increasing the bench to eight the regulations will state that 3 front row players will have to be included.
This would be the same for all teams. It would be interesting to know how many other games in the Guiness have been affected by uncontested scrums.
I believe that it would be better for the game. Perhaps it will be discussed soon.
-
Dave Angel
- Super User
- Posts: 3460
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 8:02 pm
Re: Front Row substitutes
Tigerbeat wrote:this season we have seen 2 out of 3 matches with uncontested scrumms.
The regulations state that each team must include 2 Front row players amongst the subs.
It could be 2 props or 1 prop, 1 hooker.
Tigers only had one prop on the bench so when both props went off injured, it had to go to uncontested.
Mike Ruddock said after the game that the IRB should look at expanding the subs to eight and each team should have 2 props and a hooker. This would reduce the number of matches where scrums go uncontested.
Any thoughts?
Tigerbeat, the regulations don't quite say what you claim. They say that there must be sufficient cover for the first prop injury and the first hooker injury. Therefore if a bench includes 2 props, there must be adequate cover for a hooker injury already on the field. Teams are not required to cover for a second injury to a hooker or a prop as that level of cover would be disproportionately high on a bench of 7 subs (especially as you'd still have to cover for a 2nd injury to a prop on the same side as the first, as well as covering for an injury to the opposite side of the scrum).
The regulations also say that you can't replace all three of the front row unless the third replacement is due to injury rather than tactical.
Personally I believe the level of front row cover on the bench is adequate as it is. OK, it has led to uncontested scrums during both of the last two Tigers home games but how often does it normally happen in a season?
I don't see why increasing the number of front row suvbs to three would significantly help. What if the 2 injuries were both hookers for example? Having an extra prop wouldn't help!
What if both injuries were tightheads & the "new" 2nd prop replacement you have added was a loosehead?
The number of times it would be advantageous having 3 front row subs (to stop uncontested scrums) would be outweighed by the number of times a side would be able to replace their tired front row en masse and thus negate the effort & hard work that the opposition would have put in wearing them down for 60 odd minutes!