Bath Vs Wasps, Monday, 3.00

[Digby]

It's annoying but understandable that teams unable to contest the scrum are allowed to stay at 15 when head injury rules out a player

Major disadvantage instantly to bigger packs who can't then use the set piece to take the legs out of more mobile packs.

How often does it actually happen though? And losing two hookers is a huge disadvantage anyway.

It'd still be better if the side not able to contest the scrum simply lost a player. But given how badly the players have been treated around concussion I don't have a problem with the current regs

[FKAS]

Major disadvantage instantly to bigger packs who can't then use the set piece to take the legs out of more mobile packs.

How often does it actually happen though? And losing two hookers is a huge disadvantage anyway.

It'd still be better if the side not able to contest the scrum simply lost a player. But given how badly the players have been treated around concussion I don't have a problem with the current regs

I'm happy with the current regs particularly because as you say concussion is a big concern. Wasps going to uncontested scrums always raises an eyebrow as they have plenty of previous though obviously that tactic wasn't relevant at the weekend. I hope the two Wasps hookers return to fitness quickly with no effects and this debate doesn't come up again because the days of uncontested scrums at the professional level should be consigned to the past.

[Raggs]

I don't see how going to 14 men is really fair though. Especially when it's 2 hookers that have been lost.

I understand it's there to prevent gaming of uncontested scrums. But if we're sure that a side hasn't tried to game the laws (and Wasps had a slight advantage in the scrums if anything), then dropping down to 14 is ridiculously harsh for a side that's just lost 2 players to injury.

EDIT - Imagine you lost two 10s, and were told you now had to play with 14 men, despite having other backs available on the bench.

[FKAS]

I don't see how going to 14 men is really fair though. Especially when it's 2 hookers that have been lost.

I understand it's there to prevent gaming of uncontested scrums. But if we're sure that a side hasn't tried to game the laws (and Wasps had a slight advantage in the scrums if anything), then dropping down to 14 is ridiculously harsh for a side that's just lost 2 players to injury.

EDIT - Imagine you lost two 10s, and were told you now had to play with 14 men, despite having other backs available on the bench.

No one is saying you should have played with 14. I and I think the other posts are just anti uncontested and are hoping we won't see them again. I am very much behind the regs that say if you can't maintain a front row then you go down to 14 but the concussion exemption is a good one. Important to stop teams being able to pull a prop and say "injury" to avoid scrummaging but in this case the HIA overruled it. Regs working as they should.

The flyhalf example you mention isn't relevant because it doesn't negatively impact the opposition. We've seen it previously where teams going backwards at the scrum have suddenly lost props to "injury" and then popped a backrow onto the pitch. Removing their disadvantage at the scrum but increasing ability in the loose. That sort of thing shouldn't be seen again.

[Puja]

It's always a thorny one. On the one hand, you don't want a situation like the French had a few years back, where they're clearly getting dicked in the scrums and are bending the rules to change things. There should be a penalty for going to uncontested. On the other hand, Wasps were clearly expecting to have to go down to 14 if they went to uncontested and that's why they were willing to put West in there despite that likely leading to them being in trouble at scrumtime. If there'd been a less-experienced referee than Barnes, one who was willing to accept West's "I'll give it a go," rather than interrogating him further, West probably would've played hooker in contested scrums, despite not being confident and any ensuing injury would've been due to the fact that Wasps didn't want to go down to 14.

Basically you either put pressure on people to play when it's not safe or you remove all punishment and leave yourself open to teams gaming the system with "injuries". I don't know what the right answer is.

Puja

[Raggs]

Agree with that. We have to avoid teams gaming the system, but in genuine situations, going to 14 is very harsh punishment for a team that's already going to be suffering.

Tough one, but I think anyone claiming Wasps should have been down to 14 in that situation, isn't on the right side of the argument.

[Digby]

I don't see how going to 14 men is really fair though. Especially when it's 2 hookers that have been lost.

I understand it's there to prevent gaming of uncontested scrums. But if we're sure that a side hasn't tried to game the laws (and Wasps had a slight advantage in the scrums if anything), then dropping down to 14 is ridiculously harsh for a side that's just lost 2 players to injury.

EDIT - Imagine you lost two 10s, and were told you now had to play with 14 men, despite having other backs available on the bench.

Because there was a specific concern about teams going to uncontested scrums to avoid giving up penalties/territory on the back of being weak in that area. It's not the same as replacing a 10 because having someone simply able to stand in that channel isn't a huge safety concern.

It'd be nice if we could trust the teams to be honest about their injuries and not have the situation at all, but as we've seen (and especially with Wasps in the past) we cannot trust them as they understandably put winning ahead of principle

[Digby]

Agree with that. We have to avoid teams gaming the system, but in genuine situations, going to 14 is very harsh punishment for a team that's already going to be suffering.

Tough one, but I think anyone claiming Wasps should have been down to 14 in that situation, isn't on the right side of the argument.

I'm not saying in the situation you had against Bath you should have gone down to 14, merely it's frustrating you didn't when you couldn't contest the scrum. I do get making allowances for head injuries. Just alongside that if your replacement can't scrum it doesn't seem right you're allowed a replacement.

[Raggs]

Why should a team go down to 14 just because they can't contest the scrum due to genuine injury (head or otherwise) though? What's the logic behind that?

[Puja]

Why should a team go down to 14 just because they can't contest the scrum due to genuine injury (head or otherwise) though? What's the logic behind that?

Because it's very hard to tell the difference between a genuine injury and a player who's suddenly developed a horrible stage limp after getting dicked in the scrums.

Puja

[Raggs]

Why should a team go down to 14 just because they can't contest the scrum due to genuine injury (head or otherwise) though? What's the logic behind that?

Because it's very hard to tell the difference between a genuine injury and a player who's suddenly developed a horrible stage limp after getting dicked in the scrums.

Puja

That's an argument against teams cheating by faking injuries. I want to know the argument for going to 14 men with genuine injuries.

[Peej]

To be fair, is not "bending the rules" one of the central tenets of rugby? The rules are there in good faith, there will always be a risk that they are abused, but they are there to protect player safety.

[Puja]

Why should a team go down to 14 just because they can't contest the scrum due to genuine injury (head or otherwise) though? What's the logic behind that?

Because it's very hard to tell the difference between a genuine injury and a player who's suddenly developed a horrible stage limp after getting dicked in the scrums.

Puja

That's an argument against teams cheating by faking injuries. I want to know the argument for going to 14 men with genuine injuries.

How do you decide, on pitch, if it's a genuine injury?

Puja

[Raggs]

Because it's very hard to tell the difference between a genuine injury and a player who's suddenly developed a horrible stage limp after getting dicked in the scrums.

Puja

That's an argument against teams cheating by faking injuries. I want to know the argument for going to 14 men with genuine injuries.

How do you decide, on pitch, if it's a genuine injury?

Puja

No idea.

Digby didn't seem worried about that. Hence my insistence at my question. What is the argument for going to 14 men with genuine injury.

[Banquo]

Why should a team go down to 14 just because they can't contest the scrum due to genuine injury (head or otherwise) though? What's the logic behind that?

Because it's very hard to tell the difference between a genuine injury and a player who's suddenly developed a horrible stage limp after getting dicked in the scrums.

Puja

That's an argument against teams cheating by faking injuries. I want to know the argument for going to 14 men with genuine injuries.

This- not sure why anyone is arguing about the specifics of the Wasps game, just like I wasn't sure why anyone was arguing that West should have moved to hooker.

[Puja]

That's an argument against teams cheating by faking injuries. I want to know the argument for going to 14 men with genuine injuries.

How do you decide, on pitch, if it's a genuine injury?

Puja

No idea.

Digby didn't seem worried about that. Hence my insistence at my question. What is the argument for going to 14 men with genuine injury.

Because there's no way to tell if it is a genuine injury and it's a deterrent to people pretending it's a genuine injury to get out of being beasted at every scrum.

Let's face it, if we could've taken off Dan Cole "injured" in the RWC final and stayed at 15 players, don't you think Uncle Eddie would've ordered Cole to develop a sudden, inexplicable limp?

Puja

[Raggs]

How do you decide, on pitch, if it's a genuine injury?

Puja

No idea.

Digby didn't seem worried about that. Hence my insistence at my question. What is the argument for going to 14 men with genuine injury.

Because there's no way to tell if it is a genuine injury and it's a deterrent to people pretending it's a genuine injury to get out of being beasted at every scrum.

Let's face it, if we could've taken off Dan Cole "injured" in the RWC final and stayed at 15 players, don't you think Uncle Eddie would've ordered Cole to develop a sudden, inexplicable limp?

Puja

OK, let me rephrase my question.

Dear Digby,

Why should a team with genuine injuries go down to 14 men?

Best regards,

Raggs

[Puja]

No idea.

Digby didn't seem worried about that. Hence my insistence at my question. What is the argument for going to 14 men with genuine injury.

Because there's no way to tell if it is a genuine injury and it's a deterrent to people pretending it's a genuine injury to get out of being beasted at every scrum.

Let's face it, if we could've taken off Dan Cole "injured" in the RWC final and stayed at 15 players, don't you think Uncle Eddie would've ordered Cole to develop a sudden, inexplicable limp?

Puja

OK, let me rephrase my question.

Dear Digby,

Why should a team with genuine injuries go down to 14 men?

Best regards,

Raggs

Dear Raggs (on behalf of Mx Digby),

Because it's not possible to tell the difference betwen genuine injuries and non-genuine and, without the threat that you'll go down to 14, sides getting pumped in the scrum will feign injuries to go uncontested.

Yours sincerely,

Puja

[Raggs]

FFS. Read Digby's reply. Now maybe I'm reading it wrong, but to me, it sounds like despite the fact that these were head injuries, genuine, Wasps were in the ascendancy in the scrum etc etc, he still wanted them down to 14 men. He says it's frustrating that we didn't go down to 14 men. Frustrating to me suggests he believe we should have gone down to 14, no matter how genuine the injuries.

Agree with that. We have to avoid teams gaming the system, but in genuine situations, going to 14 is very harsh punishment for a team that's already going to be suffering.

Tough one, but I think anyone claiming Wasps should have been down to 14 in that situation, isn't on the right side of the argument.

I'm not saying in the situation you had against Bath you should have gone down to 14, merely it's frustrating you didn't when you couldn't contest the scrum. I do get making allowances for head injuries. Just alongside that if your replacement can't scrum it doesn't seem right you're allowed a replacement.

[Puja]

FFS. Read Digby's reply. Now maybe I'm reading it wrong, but to me, it sounds like despite the fact that these were head injuries, genuine, Wasps were in the ascendancy in the scrum etc etc, he still wanted them down to 14 men. He says it's frustrating that we didn't go down to 14 men. Frustrating to me suggests he believe we should have gone down to 14, no matter how genuine the injuries.

Agree with that. We have to avoid teams gaming the system, but in genuine situations, going to 14 is very harsh punishment for a team that's already going to be suffering.

Tough one, but I think anyone claiming Wasps should have been down to 14 in that situation, isn't on the right side of the argument.

I'm not saying in the situation you had against Bath you should have gone down to 14, merely it's frustrating you didn't when you couldn't contest the scrum. I do get making allowances for head injuries. Just alongside that if your replacement can't scrum it doesn't seem right you're allowed a replacement.

I do get that, but his position is that you cannot have one rule for one situation and one rule for another because otherwise you're left having to make someone the arbiter between genuine and "genuine" injuries. You can't say, "Oh this situation shouldn't count because those are genuine injuries," because, while you could tell in that situation, you can't always, and, if your first aim is to avoid uncontested scrums wherever possible (as his is), then the penalty needs to be applied every time as a deterrent.

This'd be a lot easier over a pint rather than over text.

Puja

[Raggs]

It would be.

I don't think he's saying that though, but it seems like he agrees in general that you should be forced to 14 if you can't compete in the scrum.

[Stom]

It would be.

I don't think he's saying that though, but it seems like he agrees in general that you should be forced to 14 if you can't compete in the scrum.

The precise and rigorous essence of the memorandum, or indeed previous memorandums uttered by the esteemed gentlemen to whom you so faithfully refer, can sometimes become disoriented, nay dissipated, within the veritable fog of the precis in question.

[Digby]

It would be.

I don't think he's saying that though, but it seems like he agrees in general that you should be forced to 14 if you can't compete in the scrum.

Generally you should go down a man if you can't compete in the scrum, and that's an agreed standard in the game, that's also why the bench was expanded. But given the developing concerns around concussion teams are being allowed the replacement for HIA to stop them having more incentive to keep a player who should be off out on the pitch.

So yes if both hookers broke a leg that'd be bad luck as you'd be down to 14 unless you had someone who can cover, but I'd take that over teams having incentive to cheat.

Or have we changed back to a cheat's charter overall ranking all injuries the same as head injuries?

[Raggs]

Wasn't it the agreed standard in reaction to teams cheating though?

I understand you want to stop teams cheating, completely and fully. I just see it as needlessly punishing if a team wasn't cheating. Of course, it's going to be extremely tough to tell, however, in Wasps case, I really don't see why they would cheat and "injure" two hookers, to stop scrummaging when they were winning the scrums.

I wouldn't want to be a ref, I wouldn't want to make the call, but I don't see the point in further punishing a side that's already suffered by losing players. I understand why it's done, just dislike the people that seem to then suggest it's unreasonable when it's not applied (legally) in clearly non-cheating circumstances.

[Puja]

Wasn't it the agreed standard in reaction to teams cheating though?

And that's where we came in - define for me the precise way to tell 100% of the time whether someone's cheating by faking an injury or actually injured and we'll allow teams who are cheating to be treated differently from those that aren't. Wasps almost certainly weren't cheating on the weekend. However, you cannot have a rule that doesn't apply some of the time depending on something impossible to tell.

Puja