There was a game I think last season involving Quins and someone else where a player was yellow carded with 70+ minutes on the clock and because the game went on for ten minutes after the clock went red he actually came back on to the field.RagingBull wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:26 pmDon't think it does.Mark62 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:05 pm I suppose the answer to the question was it was about getting a forward back onto the pitch rather than the 2 scrum halfs and Malouf at flanker.
I think the game clock does stop at 80 because it's actual playing time unlike football.
However as we all know the game can go well past that if the ball is being kept in play, and another complication this season is that a team can kick a penalty and restart with the resulting line out even if the 80 minutes are up
MoC's rant at 4th Official
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
-
- Super User
- Posts: 7025
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:27 pm
- Location: Shepshed
Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 1998
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:25 pm
- Location: coalville
Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official
What I can't understand and questioned with my terrace mates at the time (though nobody could provide an answer) is if Wells was not allowed back on why didn't we send on Mike Williams as a like for like replacement? If we had I don't believe we would have conceded the scrum penalty that allowed Chiefs a losing bonus point.
Possible reasons might be:
Williams had taken a knock
Williams had "warmed down" whilst Youngs was still " warmed up"
The laws regarding substitutions do not allow this - I'm not sure on this one at all
Can anyone clarify please?
Possible reasons might be:
Williams had taken a knock
Williams had "warmed down" whilst Youngs was still " warmed up"
The laws regarding substitutions do not allow this - I'm not sure on this one at all
Can anyone clarify please?
Tigers for the premiership and European Cup. Get behind the team and make some noise!!
-
- Bronze Member
- Posts: 457
- Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 11:00 am
- Location: Bristol
Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official
Regarding the use of the clock:
Given Exeter won a penalty and a losing bonus point, MOC probably had good reason to rant..!
- match clock (that starts/stops with play) is used for yellow cards;
- match clock can go over 80 minutes and continues to "tick forward" - the game ends when there is a break in play (line out, scrum, etc.) though not a penalty - and this year you can now kick a penalty to touch and still have the line out. Example - France's 100th minute try against Wales in last season's 6N;
- real-time clock used for HIA and blood - for HIA, player must take at least 10 minutes; for blood, the player needs to be ready to come back on within 10 minutes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/ ... e-updates/O’Connor was left frustrated that as there was only one doctor able to review the two HIAs, Wells was unable to return to the pitch for the final scrum.
Given Exeter won a penalty and a losing bonus point, MOC probably had good reason to rant..!
Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official
I don't know if I'm correct but it may because if Wells passed the HIA test and we didn't have him ready to come on, then it means we have substituted him but also not brought a replacement on, which in theory we should have done.voice of the crumbie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:16 pm What I can't understand and questioned with my terrace mates at the time (though nobody could provide an answer) is if Wells was not allowed back on why didn't we send on Mike Williams as a like for like replacement? If we had I don't believe we would have conceded the scrum penalty that allowed Chiefs a losing bonus point.
Possible reasons might be:
Williams had taken a knock
Williams had "warmed down" whilst Youngs was still " warmed up"
The laws regarding substitutions do not allow this - I'm not sure on this one at all
Can anyone clarify please?
-
- Bronze Member
- Posts: 457
- Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 11:00 am
- Location: Bristol
Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official
Mike Williams was also off for an HIA. Harry was ready to come back on (had passed his HIA and served a full 10 minutes - real time) but the doctor/officials weren't available/weren't able to verify and let him go on.ellis9 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:30 pmI don't know if I'm correct but it may because if Wells passed the HIA test and we didn't have him ready to come on, then it means we have substituted him but also not brought a replacement on, which in theory we should have done.voice of the crumbie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:16 pm What I can't understand and questioned with my terrace mates at the time (though nobody could provide an answer) is if Wells was not allowed back on why didn't we send on Mike Williams as a like for like replacement? If we had I don't believe we would have conceded the scrum penalty that allowed Chiefs a losing bonus point.
Possible reasons might be:
Williams had taken a knock
Williams had "warmed down" whilst Youngs was still " warmed up"
The laws regarding substitutions do not allow this - I'm not sure on this one at all
Can anyone clarify please?
Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official
There was only one doctor available to carry out the HIAs for the two players so this may have delayed the return. The question was raised the other week about if two players came off at the same time for HIAs as to how they would be dealt with. The response given was that the team would need to have two doctors or decide which one was going to be replaced. No extension on the time allowed for the HIAs could be given.
A doctor cannot conduct two HIA assessments at the same time as each one needs the undivided attention.
A doctor cannot conduct two HIA assessments at the same time as each one needs the undivided attention.
SUPPORT THE MATT HAMPSON TRUST
www.matthampson.co.uk
www.matthampson.co.uk
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 1998
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:25 pm
- Location: coalville
Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official
Thanks for the clarification Bristol Tiger. That explains things.Bristol Tiger wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:41 pmMike Williams was also off for an HIA. Harry was ready to come back on (had passed his HIA and served a full 10 minutes - real time) but the doctor/officials weren't available/weren't able to verify and let him go on.ellis9 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:30 pmI don't know if I'm correct but it may because if Wells passed the HIA test and we didn't have him ready to come on, then it means we have substituted him but also not brought a replacement on, which in theory we should have done.voice of the crumbie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:16 pm What I can't understand and questioned with my terrace mates at the time (though nobody could provide an answer) is if Wells was not allowed back on why didn't we send on Mike Williams as a like for like replacement? If we had I don't believe we would have conceded the scrum penalty that allowed Chiefs a losing bonus point.
Possible reasons might be:
Williams had taken a knock
Williams had "warmed down" whilst Youngs was still " warmed up"
The laws regarding substitutions do not allow this - I'm not sure on this one at all
Can anyone clarify please?
Tigers for the premiership and European Cup. Get behind the team and make some noise!!
Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official
One can understand MoC's frustration, but in his position, he ought to keep his council or he may spend some time as a spectator.voice of the crumbie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:56 pmThanks for the clarification Bristol Tiger. That explains things.Bristol Tiger wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:41 pmMike Williams was also off for an HIA. Harry was ready to come back on (had passed his HIA and served a full 10 minutes - real time) but the doctor/officials weren't available/weren't able to verify and let him go on.
“It is no use saying, ‘We are doing our best.’ You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.” Sir Winston Churchill.
Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official
Hope I’m not wrong but I believe the fourth official was Karl Dickson ex Hairy Queens scrum half
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 1781
- Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 2:55 pm
- Location: Birmingham / Bangor Uni
Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official
Wales vs France in the 6N too. IIRC the Welsh prop went off after about 82 and came back on at 92sam16111986 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:06 pm There was a game I think last season involving Quins and someone else where a player was yellow carded with 70+ minutes on the clock and because the game went on for ten minutes after the clock went red he actually came back on to the field.
Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official
You are correct!
SUPPORT THE MATT HAMPSON TRUST
www.matthampson.co.uk
www.matthampson.co.uk
Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official
Who was the replacement TH if the Rugby Paper is to be believed he never came off the bench. Surely he would have been a better scrummaging option than Malouf
-
- Super User
- Posts: 7025
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:27 pm
- Location: Shepshed
Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official
Baumann the USA prop we acquired in the summer. Maybe MOC wanted more mobility than what's offered with three props on the pitch. I'd have thought that rather than sending Ben back on for the HIA period Smith might have been a better choice he is after all bigger and a tackling machine but I guess he wasn't fit enough (he seems to finish most games strapped with ice).
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 1998
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:25 pm
- Location: coalville
Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official
By the time this happened Matt Smith had already run himself into the ground. Being the Tiger that he is I'm sure he would have tried his hardest if he had been sent back on but it was probably a more sensible long term decision to send on someone else.sam16111986 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:16 pmBaumann the USA prop we acquired in the summer. Maybe MOC wanted more mobility than what's offered with three props on the pitch. I'd have thought that rather than sending Ben back on for the HIA period Smith might have been a better choice he is after all bigger and a tackling machine but I guess he wasn't fit enough (he seems to finish most games strapped with ice).
Tigers for the premiership and European Cup. Get behind the team and make some noise!!
-
- Super User
- Posts: 7025
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:27 pm
- Location: Shepshed
Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official
Agreed. I think Smith is managing some long term niggles but his passion for the club is such that he still puts his body on the line every game.voice of the crumbie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 11:31 pmBy the time this happened Matt Smith had already run himself into the ground. Being the Tiger that he is I'm sure he would have tried his hardest if he had been sent back on but it was probably a more sensible long term decision to send on someone else.sam16111986 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:16 pmBaumann the USA prop we acquired in the summer. Maybe MOC wanted more mobility than what's offered with three props on the pitch. I'd have thought that rather than sending Ben back on for the HIA period Smith might have been a better choice he is after all bigger and a tackling machine but I guess he wasn't fit enough (he seems to finish most games strapped with ice).