Yellow Cards At The Scrum

[BFG]

Flatman was on commentary for the Bristol match and he said that he thought Leicester had come through not straight on one penalty that was harsh against Bristol near the end, he knows a bit about scrummaging and I guess opinions vary.

[Scott1]

Flatman was on commentary for the Bristol match and he said that he thought Leicester had come through not straight on one penalty that was harsh against Bristol near the end, he knows a bit about scrummaging and I guess opinions vary.

You make Guscott sound pro England

[mol2]

When scrums go forwards from the 5m line, it seems to me it is more than likely that a try will normally be scored by the No8 dotting the ball down.

Therefore if there is any forward momentum and the scrum goes down, then the ref should award a penalty try.
No need for repeated penalties, and a yellow card. Only need a yellow card if there have been earlier infringements.
Why does it take repeated infringements on the 5m line?

This is catered for in the existing laws, it just needs a directive from on high that this is how it is to be reffed.

For a penalty try from say a deliberate knock on its black and white, why not so from a scrum?

I think this is the issue, the rules are black and white but they aren't enforced in that way because of interpretation. I also think if ref's start enforcing it more ruthlessly that more teams will look to game the system to get uncontested scrums and lets face it due to the increased focus on player welfare (rightly) its easier than ever to claim a player is unfit to return to the field of play.

Unlikely to opt for uncontested scrums - the laws were changed to make this an unattractive option. If you have no fit front row sub to come on (or back on) then you cannot replace them - you go to 14 men if it means uncontested scrums.

We all recall Wasps doing this once Tigers pack got on top of them. "Both our tight heads /hookers / loose heads are injured so no more scrums and we will bring on a flanker". As I recall the bench was increased to 8 with a requirement of a full front row to try and prevent this. When it transpired that wasn't enough for some sides, the down to 14 law came in for uncontested scrums.

[kpj tiger]

When scrums go forwards from the 5m line, it seems to me it is more than likely that a try will normally be scored by the No8 dotting the ball down.

Therefore if there is any forward momentum and the scrum goes down, then the ref should award a penalty try.
No need for repeated penalties, and a yellow card. Only need a yellow card if there have been earlier infringements.
Why does it take repeated infringements on the 5m line?

This is catered for in the existing laws, it just needs a directive from on high that this is how it is to be reffed.

For a penalty try from say a deliberate knock on its black and white, why not so from a scrum?

I think this is the issue, the rules are black and white but they aren't enforced in that way because of interpretation. I also think if ref's start enforcing it more ruthlessly that more teams will look to game the system to get uncontested scrums and lets face it due to the increased focus on player welfare (rightly) its easier than ever to claim a player is unfit to return to the field of play.

Unlikely to opt for uncontested scrums - the laws were changed to make this an unattractive option. If you have no fit front row sub to come on (or back on) then you cannot replace them - you go to 14 men if it means uncontested scrums.

We all recall Wasps doing this once Tigers pack got on top of them. "Both our tight heads /hookers / loose heads are injured so no more scrums and we will bring on a flanker". As I recall the bench was increased to 8 with a requirement of a full front row to try and prevent this. When it transpired that wasn't enough for some sides, the down to 14 law came in for uncontested scrums.

But I think most teams are happy to play with 14 now, how many times have we seen teams have 14 or even 13 and hold their own or even seemingly play better than with 15

[GETHIN EXILE]

My suggestion for dealing with these situations would make uncontested scrums even less attractive to the side loosing a fully fit front row as they would know that in order to go to uncontested they would have to loose a player of the other teams choosing not their own choice.

[JP14]

Wayne Barnes was also on the Channel 5 team, I wonder what he thought of what unfolded in the last ten minutes of the game. If he was reffing, he would have given Lam his marching orders after “it’s your fault if he gets injured remark” in my opinion.

[Wayne Richardson Fan Club]

I think Nigel would of dealt with it swiftly, there wouldn't of been a chance of a change of mind, but he would probably of gone under the sticks before anyway so it would of been academic.

I would take Flatmans judgement on front row matters than any other current "pundit".

[Tigerbeat]

Wayne Barnes was also on the Channel 5 team, I wonder what he thought of what unfolded in the last ten minutes of the game. If he was reffing, he would have given Lam his marching orders after “it’s your fault if he gets injured remark” in my opinion.

Have a watch back on the Channel 5 App and catch up. Interesting input from Wayne Barnes, who thought that Tempest handled the whole situation well.

[longlivethecrumbie]

Wayne Barnes was also on the Channel 5 team, I wonder what he thought of what unfolded in the last ten minutes of the game. If he was reffing, he would have given Lam his marching orders after “it’s your fault if he gets injured remark” in my opinion.

Have a watch back on the Channel 5 App and catch up. Interesting input from Wayne Barnes, who thought that Tempest handled the whole situation well.

In fairness to Mr Barnes, he's unlikely to throw a colleague under the bus and say he handled it badly.

I doubt very much that Lam would have tried that if he was reffing either.

[peteD]

Wayne Barnes was also on the Channel 5 team, I wonder what he thought of what unfolded in the last ten minutes of the game. If he was reffing, he would have given Lam his marching orders after “it’s your fault if he gets injured remark” in my opinion.

Have a watch back on the Channel 5 App and catch up. Interesting input from Wayne Barnes, who thought that Tempest handled the whole situation well.

In fairness to Mr Barnes, he's unlikely to throw a colleague under the bus and say he handled it badly.

I doubt very much that Lam would have tried that if he was reffing either.

I guess it depends on which bit you look at, I thought he handled the yellow card substitution discussions with Lam well, when presented with conflicting information about the injury status of Afoa, he sought out a definitive answer to help ensure player welfare.
However, the events leading up to the yellow card were not handled well. Tempest warned Bristol about the number of penalties whilst we were still in our 22. We then March up the field penalty after penalty and only after a couple more yards from their line does he issue his “final” warning. There were 3 more penalties and free kick before issuing the yellow card and the clock had gone red.
How would things have gone off the yellow had been shown with 5 minutes of play left!

[Tiger_in_Birmingham]

Unlikely to opt for uncontested scrums - the laws were changed to make this an unattractive option. If you have no fit front row sub to come on (or back on) then you cannot replace them - you go to 14 men if it means uncontested scrums.

We all recall Wasps doing this once Tigers pack got on top of them. "Both our tight heads /hookers / loose heads are injured so no more scrums and we will bring on a flanker". As I recall the bench was increased to 8 with a requirement of a full front row to try and prevent this. When it transpired that wasn't enough for some sides, the down to 14 law came in for uncontested scrums.

You always needed to be able to replace any of the front row which usually meant 2 props, 1 hooker & 4 others - it's hard to cover all other other positions with only 4 options, which is why someone like Corry was such an asset, he was international class at 4, 5, 6 & 8.

Some players were skilled enough to prop both sides (Castro) thus freeing up a bench space for someone else allowing 5 non-front row players instead of 4.

As far as I can recall Olivier Azam was the only hooker who could also prop at top flight

[Scott1]

Unlikely to opt for uncontested scrums - the laws were changed to make this an unattractive option. If you have no fit front row sub to come on (or back on) then you cannot replace them - you go to 14 men if it means uncontested scrums.

We all recall Wasps doing this once Tigers pack got on top of them. "Both our tight heads /hookers / loose heads are injured so no more scrums and we will bring on a flanker". As I recall the bench was increased to 8 with a requirement of a full front row to try and prevent this. When it transpired that wasn't enough for some sides, the down to 14 law came in for uncontested scrums.

You always needed to be able to replace any of the front row which usually meant 2 props, 1 hooker & 4 others - it's hard to cover all other other positions with only 4 options, which is why someone like Corry was such an asset, he was international class at 4, 5, 6 & 8.

Some players were skilled enough to prop both sides (Castro) thus freeing up a bench space for someone else allowing 5 non-front row players instead of 4.

As far as I can recall Olivier Azam was the only hooker who could also prop at top flight

Greg Bateman can pack down anywhere across the front row at a good level. And was Jon Smit originally a hooker? He was international class in all 3 positions

[Scott1]

Call me crazy but with his form at the time I would've seriously considered Greg for NZ 2017 if I was Lions coach. He would've been perfect as a midweek player who can cover the whole front row. Anyway I digress.