BRISTOL (H) - 5th June 2021 (NO CITINGS)

[tjs10inOz]

Would they have gone to 13 men.
If a front row leaves the field injured and no fit front row is on the bench then a replacement cannot come on.

Would a further player have been required to leave the field in the case of a yellow?

No, they would not have had to go down to 13 men. On this point the ref got confused, said the worng thing, and forced Lam into backtracking on his claim that Afoa was "injured".

Had the ref not incorrectly said that Bristol had to go down to 13 men then Afoa wouldn't have ce back on, the scrum would have been uncontested and Bris would have had to scrum down with a back in the pack and one less in their defensive line, allowing the possibility of a Tigers overlap out wide rather than a pushover try.

Instead, the ref mis-spoke, scared Lam into retracting his own lie and allowing Afoa back on to the field, with a (by now) well-rested Bris pack who were able to compete for the ball and close out the game.

[Big Dai]

Would they have gone to 13 men.
If a front row leaves the field injured and no fit front row is on the bench then a replacement cannot come on.

Would a further player have been required to leave the field in the case of a yellow?

No, they would not have had to go down to 13 men. On this point the ref got confused, said the worng thing, and forced Lam into backtracking on his claim that Afoa was "injured".

Had the ref not incorrectly said that Bristol had to go down to 13 men then Afoa wouldn't have ce back on, the scrum would have been uncontested and Bris would have had to scrum down with a back in the pack and one less in their defensive line, allowing the possibility of a Tigers overlap out wide rather than a pushover try.

Instead, the ref mis-spoke, scared Lam into retracting his own lie and allowing Afoa back on to the field, with a (by now) well-rested Bris pack who were able to compete for the ball and close out the game.

I believe they would..... Read on.

When 23 players are named in a squad, the Laws require there to be:

- a starting loosehead prop - a replacement loosehead prop

- a starting hooker - a replacement hooker

- a starting tighthead prop - a replacement tighthead prop

When a front-row player is tactically replaced, they are subsequently able to return to the field for:

- an injured front row player

- a player with a blood injury

- a player undertaking a head injury assessment

- a player who has just been injured as a result of foul play

- a front row player who has been yellow/red carded

If a front row player is yellowcarded or redcarded, then the following process takes place:

1) The player who has been issued with a card leaves the field, the team reduced by 1 player

Where there IS a suitably trained front row player available to be used:

2) If there is another player on the field who is suitably trained to play in the ‘vacant’ front row position, then, at the next scrum, that player moves into the front row and the game continues with contested scrums

3) If there is no such player on the field, but there IS a suitably trained player on the reserves/replacements bench, then, at the next scrum:

a. A player is nominated to leave the field

b. The suitably trained replacement player joins the game

c. Contested scrums remain in force

Where there is NOT a suitably trained front row player available:

4) Scrums will become UNCONTESTED

5) A further sanction will be applied for the team not being able to contest scrums

a. A (nominated) PLAYER MUST LEAVE THE FIELD and the team reduced by a 2nd player

6) If there is ANY front row player available to play, that player must play in the front row before a non-front rower does so

7) In the case of a yellow card, at the completion of the 10 minute sin-bin period, playing numbers revert to 15 (both the yellowcarded and nominated player return to the field)

8) Uncontested scrums MUST be 8 players versus 8 players

[Tigerbeat]

Tempest told Pat Lam, correctly, if you are telling me that he is injured you will need to remove another player and will be playing for 13 men for the duration of the sinbin.
Seems that Pat Lam thought the card had been marked injury. This was not the case.

[tjs10inOz]

Would they have gone to 13 men.
If a front row leaves the field injured and no fit front row is on the bench then a replacement cannot come on.

Would a further player have been required to leave the field in the case of a yellow?

No, they would not have had to go down to 13 men. On this point the ref got confused, said the worng thing, and forced Lam into backtracking on his claim that Afoa was "injured".

Had the ref not incorrectly said that Bristol had to go down to 13 men then Afoa wouldn't have ce back on, the scrum would have been uncontested and Bris would have had to scrum down with a back in the pack and one less in their defensive line, allowing the possibility of a Tigers overlap out wide rather than a pushover try.

Instead, the ref mis-spoke, scared Lam into retracting his own lie and allowing Afoa back on to the field, with a (by now) well-rested Bris pack who were able to compete for the ball and close out the game.

I believe they would..... Read on.

When 23 players are named in a squad, the Laws require there to be:

- a starting loosehead prop - a replacement loosehead prop

- a starting hooker - a replacement hooker

- a starting tighthead prop - a replacement tighthead prop

When a front-row player is tactically replaced, they are subsequently able to return to the field for:

- an injured front row player

- a player with a blood injury

- a player undertaking a head injury assessment

- a player who has just been injured as a result of foul play

- a front row player who has been yellow/red carded

If a front row player is yellowcarded or redcarded, then the following process takes place:

1) The player who has been issued with a card leaves the field, the team reduced by 1 player

Where there IS a suitably trained front row player available to be used:

2) If there is another player on the field who is suitably trained to play in the ‘vacant’ front row position, then, at the next scrum, that player moves into the front row and the game continues with contested scrums

3) If there is no such player on the field, but there IS a suitably trained player on the reserves/replacements bench, then, at the next scrum:

a. A player is nominated to leave the field

b. The suitably trained replacement player joins the game

c. Contested scrums remain in force

Where there is NOT a suitably trained front row player available:

4) Scrums will become UNCONTESTED

5) A further sanction will be applied for the team not being able to contest scrums

a. A (nominated) PLAYER MUST LEAVE THE FIELD and the team reduced by a 2nd player

6) If there is ANY front row player available to play, that player must play in the front row before a non-front rower does so

7) In the case of a yellow card, at the completion of the 10 minute sin-bin period, playing numbers revert to 15 (both the yellowcarded and nominated player return to the field)

8) Uncontested scrums MUST be 8 players versus 8 players

That makes no sense.

Bristol would have been reduced to 13 men due to one yellow card AND required to have 8 men in the scrum, thus reducing their back line to 4 + the SH?

I can accept either one or the other sanction, but not both.

Either reduce the team by by 2 but allow 7 in the unconested scrum, or reduce by the yellow carded player but require a back to pack down in an 8 man scrum.


I've NEVER seen BOTH sanctions to be enforced. That unfairly penalises the carded team far more than it should.

[sam16111986]

Surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that when advantage was played from the scrum penalty prior to the yellow card for their prop, Murimurivalu was on the wing unopposed and when the ball went along the back line it went to Freddie Steward and he chose to cut back infield rather than pass to Murimurivalu and 5 points. Close games hinge on big moments and for me that was one of them.

The ball going wide was too slow and we didn't have a runner to hold the defence so Bristol had players in the outside channel. That left a gap in the line which Steward cut back through and he was stopped close in. Steward did the right thing the chance outside had gone. We needed to move it quicker to make the most of that chance.

[MCC1964]

Interesting analysis on BT Sport just now looking back at the game. To précis: Felt that the ref handled the ‘incident’ well, that Lam was manipulating the rules at best and there may be ‘consequences’ as the RFU are going to look into it (but it will ‘take time’), that SB showed class in his response during the interview, that the ball in the last scrum was ‘just out’ and that Afoa’s action after the whistle would be a pen against them, but that would be have been reversed due to WWs retaliation to it.

Oh and that the team ought to be proud as to how much they have improved over last year.

[RagingBull]

Interesting analysis on BT Sport just now looking back at the game. To précis: Felt that the ref handled the ‘incident’ well, that Lam was manipulating the rules at best and there may be ‘consequences’ as the RFU are going to look into it (but it will ‘take time’), that SB showed class in his response during the interview, that the ball in the last scrum was ‘just out’ and that Afoa’s action after the whistle would be a pen against them, but that would be have been reversed due to WWs retaliation to it.

Oh and that the team ought to be proud as to how much they have improved over last year.

Who was talking about it?

[MCC1964]

Interesting analysis on BT Sport just now looking back at the game. To précis: Felt that the ref handled the ‘incident’ well, that Lam was manipulating the rules at best and there may be ‘consequences’ as the RFU are going to look into it (but it will ‘take time’), that SB showed class in his response during the interview, that the ball in the last scrum was ‘just out’ and that Afoa’s action after the whistle would be a pen against them, but that would be have been reversed due to WWs retaliation to it.

Oh and that the team ought to be proud as to how much they have improved over last year.

Who was talking about it?

Bayfs, Ugo and Dallaglio.

[Big Dai]

No, they would not have had to go down to 13 men. On this point the ref got confused, said the worng thing, and forced Lam into backtracking on his claim that Afoa was "injured".

Had the ref not incorrectly said that Bristol had to go down to 13 men then Afoa wouldn't have ce back on, the scrum would have been uncontested and Bris would have had to scrum down with a back in the pack and one less in their defensive line, allowing the possibility of a Tigers overlap out wide rather than a pushover try.

Instead, the ref mis-spoke, scared Lam into retracting his own lie and allowing Afoa back on to the field, with a (by now) well-rested Bris pack who were able to compete for the ball and close out the game.

I believe they would..... Read on.

When 23 players are named in a squad, the Laws require there to be:

- a starting loosehead prop - a replacement loosehead prop

- a starting hooker - a replacement hooker

- a starting tighthead prop - a replacement tighthead prop

When a front-row player is tactically replaced, they are subsequently able to return to the field for:

- an injured front row player

- a player with a blood injury

- a player undertaking a head injury assessment

- a player who has just been injured as a result of foul play

- a front row player who has been yellow/red carded

If a front row player is yellowcarded or redcarded, then the following process takes place:

1) The player who has been issued with a card leaves the field, the team reduced by 1 player

Where there IS a suitably trained front row player available to be used:

2) If there is another player on the field who is suitably trained to play in the ‘vacant’ front row position, then, at the next scrum, that player moves into the front row and the game continues with contested scrums

3) If there is no such player on the field, but there IS a suitably trained player on the reserves/replacements bench, then, at the next scrum:

a. A player is nominated to leave the field

b. The suitably trained replacement player joins the game

c. Contested scrums remain in force

Where there is NOT a suitably trained front row player available:

4) Scrums will become UNCONTESTED

5) A further sanction will be applied for the team not being able to contest scrums

a. A (nominated) PLAYER MUST LEAVE THE FIELD and the team reduced by a 2nd player

6) If there is ANY front row player available to play, that player must play in the front row before a non-front rower does so

7) In the case of a yellow card, at the completion of the 10 minute sin-bin period, playing numbers revert to 15 (both the yellowcarded and nominated player return to the field)

8) Uncontested scrums MUST be 8 players versus 8 players

That makes no sense.

Bristol would have been reduced to 13 men due to one yellow card AND required to have 8 men in the scrum, thus reducing their back line to 4 + the SH?

I can accept either one or the other sanction, but not both.

Either reduce the team by by 2 but allow 7 in the unconested scrum, or reduce by the yellow carded player but require a back to pack down in an 8 man scrum.


I've NEVER seen BOTH sanctions to be enforced. That unfairly penalises the carded team far more than it should.

What you can and can't accept is irrelevant! It's the law. It may be an ass, but it is the law.

Statistically you may not have seen it because of the provision of a complete front row in 23 man squads.... And tight and loose head in those squads may be interchangeable.

I don't see it as unfair.... I think it was all done because with a 22 man squad, certain sides (We'll call them Wasps, for sake of argument) were tactically reverting to uncontested scrums when their pack was recieving a bit of a pasting.

So if you can compete you can chose whether you scrum with seven or eight, deciding where the hole in the line will be or take the scrum out of the equation as an attacking threat, but leave an extra hole.

........ As I read it.... Interestingly reading some guidance today, locks are also considered specialist positions......

Unfair? I don't think so.

[Cagey Tiger]

No, they would not have had to go down to 13 men. On this point the ref got confused, said the worng thing, and forced Lam into backtracking on his claim that Afoa was "injured".

Had the ref not incorrectly said that Bristol had to go down to 13 men then Afoa wouldn't have ce back on, the scrum would have been uncontested and Bris would have had to scrum down with a back in the pack and one less in their defensive line, allowing the possibility of a Tigers overlap out wide rather than a pushover try.

Instead, the ref mis-spoke, scared Lam into retracting his own lie and allowing Afoa back on to the field, with a (by now) well-rested Bris pack who were able to compete for the ball and close out the game.

I believe they would..... Read on.

When 23 players are named in a squad, the Laws require there to be:

- a starting loosehead prop - a replacement loosehead prop

- a starting hooker - a replacement hooker

- a starting tighthead prop - a replacement tighthead prop

When a front-row player is tactically replaced, they are subsequently able to return to the field for:

- an injured front row player

- a player with a blood injury

- a player undertaking a head injury assessment

- a player who has just been injured as a result of foul play

- a front row player who has been yellow/red carded

If a front row player is yellowcarded or redcarded, then the following process takes place:

1) The player who has been issued with a card leaves the field, the team reduced by 1 player

Where there IS a suitably trained front row player available to be used:

2) If there is another player on the field who is suitably trained to play in the ‘vacant’ front row position, then, at the next scrum, that player moves into the front row and the game continues with contested scrums

3) If there is no such player on the field, but there IS a suitably trained player on the reserves/replacements bench, then, at the next scrum:

a. A player is nominated to leave the field

b. The suitably trained replacement player joins the game

c. Contested scrums remain in force

Where there is NOT a suitably trained front row player available:

4) Scrums will become UNCONTESTED

5) A further sanction will be applied for the team not being able to contest scrums

a. A (nominated) PLAYER MUST LEAVE THE FIELD and the team reduced by a 2nd player

6) If there is ANY front row player available to play, that player must play in the front row before a non-front rower does so

7) In the case of a yellow card, at the completion of the 10 minute sin-bin period, playing numbers revert to 15 (both the yellowcarded and nominated player return to the field)

8) Uncontested scrums MUST be 8 players versus 8 players

That makes no sense.

Bristol would have been reduced to 13 men due to one yellow card AND required to have 8 men in the scrum, thus reducing their back line to 4 + the SH?

I can accept either one or the other sanction, but not both.

Either reduce the team by by 2 but allow 7 in the unconested scrum, or reduce by the yellow carded player but require a back to pack down in an 8 man scrum.


I've NEVER seen BOTH sanctions to be enforced. That unfairly penalises the carded team far more than it should.

Probably to stop what used to happen with Wasps (and other teams) in the Dayglo era. Pack getting mullered in the scrum in second half and a substitute front row player gets binned. The starting player is "injured", scrums go uncontested with 7 in the pack. No real advantage to the other team. Even if you make them play with 8 in the scrum, because it is uncontested, the back row can break away as soon as the ball is out, reducing the impact of having 1 less player in the 'backs'.

[Ian Cant]

Bristol conceded 19 penalties and Tempest knew their discipline was awful: how many times this season have we and Sale had players yellow carded on the second offence 5 metres out? I honestly believe that if we had been defending a 3 point lead with 7 minutes to go then the yellow card would have come quickly and then further collapsing would result in a yellow. Unlike us v Worcester at the end of last week’s we tried to compete to get a penalty and did. Bristol set out to waste time and had no intention of legally competing. At the time Bristol were shattered and sadly all the second yellow did was nullify our advantage: secondly we had opted for the scrum penalty where going for the line out would have been a better option.
Whether it had been us or any other team in that situation yesterday I would have wanted justice for the attacking team: but that rarely happens.
Turn up again next week and end on a high at Wasps: to win there would be another sign of progress being made.

[daktari]

RFU is now investigating according BT Sport

[Jimmy Skitz]

RFU is now investigating according BT Sport

No good to us we’re not going to be awarded the win

[Scott1]

RFU is now investigating according BT Sport

Good! Lam should be up on a charge of bringing the game into disrepute with his lies,gamesmanship,threat and blatant time-wasting!

[RagingBull]

When do citing's get announced?