Law 3.13(g) states:
“A Match organiser may determine within Competition Rules that a match may not commence in the event of suitably trained and experienced players not being available prior to a match.”
Law 3.14(d) states:
“A provision may be introduced that where uncontested scrums are ordered as a result of there being no suitably trained and experienced front row replacement for any reason, the team concerned shall not be entitled to replace the player whose departure caused uncontested scrums.”
In the interests of the amateur game; QRU has determined not to exercise Law 3.13(g) and all games may commence in the knowledge that all scrums will be uncontested during the game.
However, when a game does commence and at least the first scrum is contested; then Law 3.14(d) is to be applied.
It appears that the net effect of this directive is that those sides (i.e. lower grades and subbies) who are short of STE front row replacements are commencing matches with uncontested scrums rather than starting contested and going to 14 men through injury.
My thoughts are:
Rule 3.14(d) was introduced to maintain that the contested scrum remains an integral and distinctive part of the Game.
The IRB Playing Charter 2012 states that “the essential balance between continuity of play and continuity of possession” is provided “as one team attempts to maintain continuity of possession and the opposing team strives to contest for possession.”
Furthermore, the Charter says “the contests are balanced in such a way as to reward superior skill displayed in the preceding action. For example, a team forced to kick for touch because of its inability to maintain the play, is denied the throw-in to the lineout. Similarly, the team knocking the ball on or passing the ball forward is denied the throw-in at the subsequent scrum. The advantage then must always lie with the team throwing the ball in, although, here again, it is important that these areas of play can be fairly contested.”
Rule 3.14(d) attempts to maintain this balance by lessening the possessing team’s ability to maintain continuity of possession where that team has removed ability of the opposing team to contest for possession during the set piece, namely the scrum.
Subsequently, when the team having no suitably trained and experienced (STE) front row replacements become the opposing team in contest for possession, they are also now disadvantaged in the remaining set pieces and general play, despite no requirement that a replacement player need be “suitably trained and experienced” for these areas of play.
It is in these plays that I imply that Rule 3.14(d) removes the balance between contest and continuity and no longer rewards superior skill and instead shifts focus to physical requirements where those requirements are superfluous, resulting in play that is unfair and no longer in the Spirit of the Game.
It is my experience as a senior player in lower grades, that the majority of players and coaches would prefer to see a 15 per side game with uncontested scrummaging than the situation described above and this appears to be how it is playing out.
From the ARU’s request for clarification (IRB Clarification 2-2008):
ARU believes that the intention of the Law is for non-contested scrums to be played where one or both teams are unable to provide suitably trained or experienced players to play in the front row (either at the start of a match or during a match).
ARU is also strongly of the view that at the Community level of the game, the effect of introducing competition rules that provide a sanction or penalty (either prior to, during the match, or post match) for the teams that are unable to comply with Law 3.5 has the potential to lead to untrained or inexperienced players being placed in an unsafe situation by team officials who wish to comply with Law 3.5 in order to avoid the sanction or penalty imposed if they do not comply.
I think that this situation could also occur in relation to Rule 3.14(d). Further it could see team officials or indeed STE front row players themselves attempt to delay removing an injured STE front row player in order to avoid the sanction.
Unfortunately it may also create unscrupulous or foul play targeted specifically at STE front rows in order to force opposition to be sanctioned by Rule 3.14(d).
For these reasons, I do not think that Rule 3.14(d) should be enforced.
What are your thoughts?
