Uncontested scrums - down to 13?

[paddybrown]

Can anyone explain a very weird rule to me?

In last night's Pro14 match between Ulster and Zebre, Zebre's hooker Ceciliani had to go off early with a head injury. His replacement, Manfredi, was red carded five minutes before half time. Ceciliani wasn't able to come back on, and they didn't have anyone else who could play hooker, so they had to go to uncontested scrums. All clear so far. But the referee decided that Zebre had to take another player off, so they had to play more than half the match with 13 men. In the name of God, why?

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Basically when a front row who can't get replaced gets red-carded the team gets punished two ways.
The first is the red card itself. The second is that the team that causes uncontested scrums basically loses another player.

Scenario 3.

During the match a team replaced both their props through injury. The replacement TH is permanently suspended (R/C). At the next scrum awarded in the match the following applies:

1. If the team cannot field a suitable front row uncontested scrums must be ordered. The permanently suspended TH player cannot be replaced.
2. The permanent suspended TH caused uncontested scrums to be ordered therefore the team lose a player. The team must nominate a player to leave the field.
3. The remaining substitute (hooker) must be used in the front row of the uncontested scrums. Another player must be nominated to leave the field to allow the hooker to come on to the field to play.
4. The team plays with 13 players for the remainder of the match.
5. Both teams must form with eight players in the scrum.

Law Application Guidelines | World Rugby Laws

Law application guidelines for the game of rugby union.

www.world.rugby

 

[Leinster Fan]

Interesting, didn't know that was the rule.

Seems needlessly harsh in all honesty. Punishes teams for injuries too, which is a really dangerous trap to fall into.

 

[paddybrown]

Interesting, didn't know that was the rule.

Seems needlessly harsh in all honesty. Punishes teams for injuries too, which is a really dangerous trap to fall into.

I agree. You may as well award the other team a penalty bonus point win. Red cards almost always spoil games. Red cards that result in another player having to be withdrawn completely ruin them. And as you say, it punishes getting injured. It should be rethought.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Seems needlessly harsh in all honesty. Punishes teams for injuries too, which is a really dangerous trap to fall into.

I agree it's overkill, but let me play devil's advocate for a sec. What they want to avoid with this is a team using uncontested scrums to their own advantage. Say you have a weak scrum and face a team with a strong one. Since injuries are not an exact science you can argue there could be a situation where the front-rowers from the team with the weak scrum conveniently and suddenly become more fragile and prone to injuries. That'd be against the spirit of the game.

If you have a strong scrum, forcing you to go uncontested is a HUGE disadvantage, too. They want a team, even a team with a weak scrum, given the choice, to still prefer contested scrums. In order to do that they over punish the team that causes uncontested.

There are a few caveats thou. I don't remember all the details but there is a difference if the reason for uncontested is due to injury or RC. It's in the link i posted earlier.

 

[Which Tyler]

Which is not just a hypothetical - it was a much-used tactic of the Ewards era of Wasps play.
The harsh aspect is that it's come due to a red card, so it's 13 v 15, rather than "injury", which the rule was made to address