Avoiding the uncontested scrum trap

First topic message reminder :

I have no idea whether Wales played cute at the weekend. In his press conference, Gatland was adamant that Brown had cramped up, and there may indeed be footage shows him suffering before he was subbed off.

Whatever actually took place, it seems undeniable that Georgia weren't able to use the penalty and sin bin advantage as they wanted. In fact, they probably would have preferred to play a fifteen man Welsh side with contestable scrums.

This scenario comes about when a front row player gets sent to the sin bin, and there is no fit replacement for him. I hope someone can correct me, if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that play just continues with that player in the bin, until a scrum is awarded (It might come instantly, if the attacking side wanting to scrum the penalty).

A full pack of eight is needed even for uncontested scrums, so someone has to be subbed to let the extra forward on. However, if a fit front row replacement isn't available, then I think a side can send a back five player on, which is potentially a handier addition when trying to defend while a man down.

It just seems like a glaring inconsistency in the game if a penalty advantage turns out to be so disadvantageous. I've heard a couple of suggestions:

- As the sinbinned player is fit, he should come back on, or stay on, because his absence is the root of the problem, and someone else go off. Not a bad idea, but you'd need to work out what happens in the case of another infringement. Can he get a red with a second straight yellow in this period, and would that mean another player going off? If he stays on, can he get a third yellow or more by serial offending during the ten minutes?

- If a team can't field a legal scrum because of a sinbinning, there should be an immediate points penalty. There's already a sanction (at least in Test rugby) where a team forfeits a match if it can't put out a 23 with full front row cover. That topic came up at the last World Cup, when a couple of squads only named two hookers, which could have become an issue if one of them turned an ankle during the warm-up, with no time to call in a replacement.

Not sure about either or these.

For me it's simple, you have your 7 subs as normal. Then you have to name 3 forwards who can play in each of the front row positions, that only get used in these types of instances. So that is 10 subs in all, but the three extra front row forward ones are not used in the starting 22, but are there for special circumstances.

marty2086 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Where was this article when France engaged in the dark arts?

Not the same situation. It was Wales who got the yellow card. France claimed an HIA, so they could replace a player. That could happen any time in a match, and needs a different policing approach.

In the Georgia case, they were awarded an advantage which arguably put them in a worse position.

 In fairness to the referee he then gave Georgia the opportunity to change their decision to pack a scrum, once Wales put the game into "Golden Oldie" scrums. Most referees dont have that vision.

Did the ref not get it wrong in the first place though?

Wales made a tactical replacement and not an injury replacement, do the rules not state the player has to return?

Maybe the rules need to put the onus on the coaches etc to inform officials if a player can't return and anyone who hasn't has to either send the player on or go down to 13 as some suggested

Law 3.6 (c)
When a front row player leaves the playing area, whether through injury or temporary or permanent suspension, the referee will enquire at that time whether the team can continue with contested scrums. If the referee is informed that the team will not be able to contest the scrum then the referee will order uncontested scrums. If the player returns or another front row player comes on then contested scrums may resume.

LordDowlais wrote:For me it's simple, you have your 7 subs as normal. Then you have to name 3 forwards who can play in each of the front row positions, that only get used in these types of instances. So that is 10 subs in all, but the three extra front row forward ones are not used in the starting 22, but are there for special circumstances.

What happens if the extra sub gets injured or binned?

8 subs as normal.

LordDowlais wrote:For me it's simple, you have your 7 subs as normal. Then you have to name 3 forwards who can play in each of the front row positions, that only get used in these types of instances. So that is 10 subs in all, but the three extra front row forward ones are not used in the starting 22, but are there for special circumstances.

Couple of questions:

1) You are reducing the "normal" bench from 8 to 7?
2) Does this 7 include front rowers?
3) Could we have 6 front row forwards amongst your 10 on the bench?


Scotland are stuggling to find 4 props for Saturday, 6 would be a real issue

LondonTiger wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Where was this article when France engaged in the dark arts?

Not the same situation. It was Wales who got the yellow card. France claimed an HIA, so they could replace a player. That could happen any time in a match, and needs a different policing approach.

In the Georgia case, they were awarded an advantage which arguably put them in a worse position.

 In fairness to the referee he then gave Georgia the opportunity to change their decision to pack a scrum, once Wales put the game into "Golden Oldie" scrums. Most referees dont have that vision.

Did the ref not get it wrong in the first place though?

Wales made a tactical replacement and not an injury replacement, do the rules not state the player has to return?

Maybe the rules need to put the onus on the coaches etc to inform officials if a player can't return and anyone who hasn't has to either send the player on or go down to 13 as some suggested

Law 3.6 (c)
When a front row player leaves the playing area, whether through injury or temporary or permanent suspension, the referee will enquire at that time whether the team can continue with contested scrums. If the referee is informed that the team will not be able to contest the scrum then the referee will order uncontested scrums. If the player returns or another front row player comes on then contested scrums may resume.

So the rule needs to change then

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:For me it's simple, you have your 7 subs as normal. Then you have to name 3 forwards who can play in each of the front row positions, that only get used in these types of instances. So that is 10 subs in all, but the three extra front row forward ones are not used in the starting 22, but are there for special circumstances.

What happens if the extra sub gets injured or binned?

Then we're fooked. But at least this is a measure to try and stop what happened on the weekend.

So what we are saying is then, that 3 players in the same position get injured all in the same game ? If so, then we can all look at cheating conspiracies.

LondonTiger wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:For me it's simple, you have your 7 subs as normal. Then you have to name 3 forwards who can play in each of the front row positions, that only get used in these types of instances. So that is 10 subs in all, but the three extra front row forward ones are not used in the starting 22, but are there for special circumstances.

Couple of questions:

1) You are reducing the "normal" bench from 8 to 7?
2) Does this 7 include front rowers?
3) Could we have 6 front row forwards amongst your 10 on the bench?


Scotland are stuggling to find 4 props for Saturday, 6 would be a real issue

What I am saying is, we have our 7 subs as normal, nothing to change there, we use them as we see fit, but we then have to supply emergency front row cover across the 3 positions. So we would have an emergency TH, an emergency LH and an emergency hooker. So if you have used ALL your front row options out of your 7 original subs, then you have to use one of your specialist subs.

But I am fecked to know what to do if you get a third injury.

LordDowlais wrote:For me it's simple, you have your 7 subs as normal. Then you have to name 3 forwards who can play in each of the front row positions, that only get used in these types of instances. So that is 10 subs in all, but the three extra front row forward ones are not used in the starting 22, but are there for special circumstances.

Dear Lord, I think you're all over-thinking this a bit. We'll have more subs-in-waiting in the stands in future than players on the field.

Why don't coaches just make a pact with themselves and their consciences that they won't force their players to cheat from the sidelines. If a player is okay to go on, he should not be forced by a coach to pretend injury (thus has happened in the past) - if a player is not fit to go on, he should not be forced by a coach to retake the field (thus has happened in the past)

Coaches need to be firmly told their coaching careers are on the line for such toying on the sidelines. Any suspicion at all and said coaches should get a written warning that standards must be maintained or severe punishment follows.

But how do you prove any of that SF ?

Even though it's been pointed out he still dissent realise we have more than 7 subs a side.

FFS.

I am trying to make this simple.

How many subs do you want, a stand full of them ?

Get rid of the extra sub, the 8th one.

Have 7 subs. To do how you see fit.

Have 3 emergency front row subs one for every position, ONLY TO BE USED, if all your options have been exhausted out of your original 7 subs.

LordDowlais wrote:FFS.

I am trying to make this simple.

How many subs do you want, a stand full of them ?

Get rid of the extra sub, the 8th one.

Have 7 subs. To do how you see fit.

Have 3 emergency front row subs one for every position, ONLY TO BE USED, if all your options have been exhausted out of your original 7 subs.

Not simple at all as similar situations can still arise, a replacement getting rinsed at scrum time is 'injured' and needs to be replaced by the emergency replacement who could steady the scrum

LordDowlais wrote:But how do you prove any of that SF ?

By sitting players down in a cold, lifeless room, without coaches around - probably after a week of only bread and water and sleep deprivation torture mechanisms and interrogating them and demanding the truth.  

"Were you genuinely injured?"  "Were you genuinely feeling great?"  "Who said what?  "When did they say it?" etc etc.
Then bring in the medics, on their own... pressure setting of truth collection; and ask them to back their integrity to their profession and ask them did they feel under duress.
Then bring in coaches.... all of them, individually - without support - and ask them to go through the memories and ask them whether they are being truthful.

Stories begin to break down and disintegrate when people are isolated and interrogated soon after the specific incident.  All those involved in such a 'suspicious' incident should be called in by a WR panel before they have a chance to leave the grounds to go off with their teams to hotels.  Catch them fresh and get them all alone.  Someone is going to break in that scenario if the truth is not being told.

Phew. So for instance you can then say bring on a sub for 30 min. He's looking dodgy...hia. And off then another fresh sub for 30....twisted ankle. Emergency sub for the find 30. Fresh as a daisy. Ie it would.only.work if sides aren't trying to con the system. Reducing players is the only way to do it imo.

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:But how do you prove any of that SF ?

By sitting players down in a cold, lifeless room, without coaches around - probably after a week of only bread and water and sleep deprivation torture mechanisms and interrogating them and demanding the truth.  

"Were you genuinely injured?"  "Were you genuinely feeling great?"  "Who said what?  "When did they say it?" etc etc.
Then bring in the medics, on their own... pressure setting of truth collection; and ask them to back their integrity to their profession and ask them did they feel under duress.
Then bring in coaches.... all of them, individually - without support - and ask them to go through the memories and ask them whether they are being truthful.

Stories begin to break down and disintegrate when people are isolated and interrogated soon after the specific incident.  All those involved in such a 'suspicious' incident should be called in by a WR panel before they have a chance to leave the grounds to go off with their teams to hotels.  Catch them fresh and get them all alone.  Someone is going to break in that scenario if the truth is not being told.

So put them through a Gatland training session?

marty2086 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:But how do you prove any of that SF ?

By sitting players down in a cold, lifeless room, without coaches around - probably after a week of only bread and water and sleep deprivation torture mechanisms and interrogating them and demanding the truth.  

"Were you genuinely injured?"  "Were you genuinely feeling great?"  "Who said what?  "When did they say it?" etc etc.
Then bring in the medics, on their own... pressure setting of truth collection; and ask them to back their integrity to their profession and ask them did they feel under duress.
Then bring in coaches.... all of them, individually - without support - and ask them to go through the memories and ask them whether they are being truthful.

Stories begin to break down and disintegrate when people are isolated and interrogated soon after the specific incident.  All those involved in such a 'suspicious' incident should be called in by a WR panel before they have a chance to leave the grounds to go off with their teams to hotels.  Catch them fresh and get them all alone.  Someone is going to break in that scenario if the truth is not being told.

So put them through a Gatland training session?

Well yes... exactly.

Didn't want to shorten that explanation because I was afraid of an 'Anti-Welsh' moment being caught by Lord.......

Scottrf wrote:

Griff wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Griff wrote:Sorry, meant the first 606 link. We're talking about the outrage 'on here', I.e. 606. The reaction seems to have been very different to both incidents.

You're still wrong, and there was plenty of outrage about what the French did. The first link is a French fan who was doubting what France did!

Maybe you're talking about the 3rd v2 link? (convenient if that' that's the only one you had time for), which questions multiple incidents, including the Slimani one.

I've just read the first link again. There's no outrage. No-one calling France disgusting cheats. No one saying they brought the game into disrepute. No one saying to throw the book at them. Whocares says the incident looked a bit suspect. The rest is about Barnes bottling it, or the hooter should go automatically on 85mins, etc. I'll get to the rest when I'm back. Hoping that's where the outrage against France is

"I have no idea whether Wales played cute at the weekend. In his press conference, Gatland was adamant that Brown had cramped up, and there may indeed be footage shows him suffering before he was subbed off."

Outrage/disgusting cheats?

See the Wales thread.

IIRC the change to an 8 man bench from a 7 man one was brought in partly to stop teams under the pump mysteriously picking up a couple of front row injuries, and partly for safety reasons, as with the every increasing physical demands of the game LH and TH became evermore specialist positions, and props who could cover both sides increasingly rare.

I think it's already the case that if a side has two props from the same side get injured they can't replace the second one? So if a team is under the pump at scrum time and wants to pull a fast one they automatically lose a player. Seems to have worked OK, as I can't remember many instances of uncontested scrums in recent times, whereas some teams (*cough* Wasps *cough*) used to make rather a habit of it in the past.

With that in mind, maybe a straightforward solution would be to do something similar in the sin-binning case. That is, if the team who has a prop sin-binned has no fit prop to bring on, they have to bring another player off for the sin-bin period.

LordDowlais wrote:FFS.

I am trying to make this simple.

How many subs do you want, a stand full of them ?

Get rid of the extra sub, the 8th one.

Have 7 subs. To do how you see fit.

Have 3 emergency front row subs one for every position, ONLY TO BE USED, if all your options have been exhausted out of your original 7 subs.

An interesting approach.

I'd prefer a bit more drama into the fold.  It's the uncontested scrum piece that doesn't feel right with the current rules.  The penalised team can end up in an improved position it could be argued.  So let's mix it up a bit.  Where a prop is in the sin-bin and there isn't a valid replacement on the bench, the penalised team shouldn't get the automatic benefit of uncontested scrums and choosing their change of injured player.  

What if the referee allowed the opposition captain (who have earned the advantage and benefit of the penalty) to release the prop from the sinbin replacing that prop with a player of their choosing? If the prop was to be sinbinned again then the captain can select another player to sit in the bin in their place.

Would you be willing to loose 2-3 players collapsing a 5m scrum repeatedly? Or would you stay up and get marched backwards giving the ref the opportunity to award a penalty try. Does the captain take the strength out of the pack or wipe out the backline for a simple attacking move?

Just throwing out something a bit different.

Quite like that.

Genuinely surprised that anyone would take this thread to be a backhanded way to condemn Wales, rather than the intended discussion of a potential anomaly in the law.

The Six Nations incident last year is more akin to bloodgate: France is suspected of faking an injury to get a player on the pitch who could perform a role in superior fashion. Quins wanted a drop goal from Evans, while France wanted a better prop. Of course, World Rugby subsequently found no evidence of a faked injury.

Last weekend, there were again allegations of a faked injury, and the action involved an attacking scrum in the last moments, but that's the only similarity. From Georgia's perspective, if there was no fake injury and Wales are right that Brown could not come back, they still don't get the advantage they want.

The question is whether it's worth doing anything about that, or if you risk adding further complications. (Of course, not all uncontested scrum controversies result from a weaker scrum not fielding players. The Second Lions Test in 2009 went uncontested after Bakkies Botha cleaned out Adam Jones. The Lions would definitely have preferred a contest.)

As far as bloodgate-style fakes injuries are concerned, the HIA protocol has given unscrupulous teams an opportunity to use a process designed for player welfare to gain a playing advantage. No idea how you police that. A situation where I can envisage a team playing fast and loose is at a World Cup, where a drop goal shoot-out looms, and you suddenly want your best kickers back on.

To be honest Rugby Fan, for me it wasn't this thread but the comments on the Wales season thread. And the comments on BBC which are so over the top as to be farcical in some instances.

I can see that this thread is about the law.

Griff wrote:To be honest Rugby Fan, for me it wasn't this thread but the comments on the Wales season thread.  And the comments on BBC which are so over the top as to be farcical in some instances.  

I can see that this thread is about the law.

The Wales Season thread?

Well, why didn't you tell us all that earlier, Griff?!

I'm being much too diplomatic here.... I was looking for some place to let my hair down more. Right lads, all of us over to the Wales Season Thread!

And mainly from wales fans.

I think it's impressive that Georgia were within 7 away to Wales. Shows the progress they are making.

It also shows yet again that Wales need to replace Gatland.

Wales did what they could to spare the national team from losing to Georgia.

More clarification on the law needed though.

Personally I agree though that if you go to uncontested scrums a back has to be sacrificed from the side who has run out of props.

beshocked wrote:Personally I agree though that if you go to uncontested scrums a back has to be sacrificed from the side who has run out of props.

that seems fair to me.

LordDowlais wrote:

beshocked wrote:Personally I agree though that if you go to uncontested scrums a back has to be sacrificed from the side who has run out of props.

that seems fair to me.

Thus why it'll never get passed anyone in WR..........

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

beshocked wrote:Personally I agree though that if you go to uncontested scrums a back has to be sacrificed from the side who has run out of props.

that seems fair to me.

Thus why it'll never get passed anyone in WR..........

We could have an x-factor style vote.

We could line all the backs up, all the fans get a button on their seat, we all have apps at home, and the fans could decide the outcome. Dermot O'leary could be the adjudicator.

" In no particular order, the back who is staying on the pitch is.........."

Don't Lord................... I can sense some rugby 'backers' with influence in Rugby Union thinking too seriously about that one......

Personally after the French Debacle I though the IRB/World Rugby ought to step in, now I'm sure of it.

The fact is that international props are so heavy that they can't manage to play 80 mins anyway, and they are using so much of there energy that they are going to be cramping up anyway.

I think 1 of the following should happen,

If the opposition can't bring a prop/hooker on, at each scrum awarded to the un-penalised team its an automatic penalty which can be kicked for line out or the posts, if it should be a 5 m attacking scrum then automatic penalty try (deliberate infringement at the scrum, only 7 people)

Alternatively

Uncontested scrums, but wing and full back go off so in effect automatic double yellow

With two caveat in both cases, if the team with 15 then gets a yellow instead of losing a player the binned player/s come back on. Also where a front row is deemed by the officials (ref/line judge independent medical advice) to require a HIA or to actually be injured then it should be go to uncontested scrum

Scottrf wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Just for the record, I do not agree with it, never have condoned it, and never will, but where was the outrage 6 months ago ?

Here http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/39488240

Here http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/six-nations-authorities-probe-controversial-late-replacement-frances-wales-a7665191.html

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536078

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536070

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536364

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p150-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3536432

Here https://www.606v2.com/t65356p350-same-tim-cymru-v-j-ai-une-tour-eiffel-dans-mon-pantalon#3538413

Such a victim mentality some of you guys have.

You English really don't like to hear the truth do you? The resorting to showing off like little children is getting a bit much now.

Not sure why you've posted the same article 5 times but all you've done is prove Dowlais correct - yep, correct. A bit of outrage from some Wales fans as expected but not from the supposed 'neutrals.' We were told to get on with it, etc. If anything all you've done is remind us how said neutrals were commenting on Barnes throughout the match - we tend to hear/read that the ref is helping Wales in every single match we play. I see another Welsh poster, a fairly good one, has just recently left the site. I wonder how many of us are left now.



I can't see there being any changes myself, unless NZ and England rugby want it done. All the suggestions so far are naf.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Mikey is screaming blue murder on the thread.  

True - we were winning and in a winning position fair and square. My mood at the time exacerbated by the fact I don't like French rugby and everyone having their usual anti-welsh moan which we see on EVERY Wales match thread. I got over it the same night.

One, two three....four, five, six...., seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve....

Twelve of you left Mikey, by my counting.

The site is dying anyway btw.... at least the rugby bit is. Nothing lasts forever. New trends, new places to be.
I think most people are bored now rather than pi-ssed off.

SecretFly wrote:One, two three....four, five, six...., seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve....

Twelve of you left Mikey, by my counting.

Some are chippier than others.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:FFS.

I am trying to make this simple.

How many subs do you want, a stand full of them ?

Get rid of the extra sub, the 8th one.

Have 7 subs. To do how you see fit.

Have 3 emergency front row subs one for every position, ONLY TO BE USED, if all your options have been exhausted out of your original 7 subs.

An interesting approach.

I'd prefer a bit more drama into the fold.  It's the uncontested scrum piece that doesn't feel right with the current rules.  The penalised team can end up in an improved position it could be argued.  So let's mix it up a bit.  Where a prop is in the sin-bin and there isn't a valid replacement on the bench, the penalised team shouldn't get the automatic benefit of uncontested scrums and choosing their change of injured player.  

What if the referee allowed the opposition captain (who have earned the advantage and benefit of the penalty) to release the prop from the sinbin replacing that prop with a player of their choosing? If the prop was to be sinbinned again then the captain can select another player to sit in the bin in their place.

Would you be willing to loose 2-3 players collapsing a 5m scrum repeatedly? Or would you stay up and get marched backwards giving the ref the opportunity to award a penalty try. Does the captain take the strength out of the pack or wipe out the backline for a simple attacking move?

Just throwing out something a bit different.

I absolutely love that Idea. Do we allow ourselves to be marched back or do we start losing our backs causing much greater damage in the long run.

For me this kind of Skullduggery is dangerous for the sport.

It was far worse when France did it against Wales because they were making a mockery of the HIA protocols. But resorting to such stuff to beat Georgia really puts into sharp focus how low Welsh rugby has plummeted. There is no way a team with Wales' resources and playing pool should resort to that sort of thing to beat a team like Georgia, if indeed any of the stuff I've been reading is true, and thats a big IF.

Of course nothing can be proven and the evidence is quite shakey, but Wales may have allowed Georgia a foot in the door (no bad thing IMO) of making it the 7 Nations and a lot of that is to do with how well drilled Georgia were, particularly at the scrum and in defence. I think Georgia deserve a lot of credit for how they played.

ebop wrote:What a cynical underhanded tactic from Wales, lol. Teams that do this chicken-sh1t nonsense should be forced to take the functioning prop off and play with 14 for the rest of the game.

Yes what they should be doing is cheating by using their shoulders to try and take people's heads off or constantly killing opposition ball to prevent tries being scored

Just an example mikey that there were people truly outraged about it. Still don't think this thread is showing anything of the sort and when on track has been civil.

SecretFly wrote:One, two three....four, five, six...., seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve....

Twelve of you left Mikey, by my counting.

The site is dying anyway btw.... at least the rugby bit is.  Nothing lasts forever.  New trends, new places to be.
I think most people are bored now rather than pi-ssed off.

Very true, I wonder why

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:There is no way a team with Wales' resources and playing pool should resort to that sort of thing to beat a team like Georgia, if indeed any of the stuff I've been reading is true, and thats a big IF.

All good points.
Scotland 165,000 players.
Samoa 12,000 players.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just an example mikey that there were people truly outraged about it. Still don't think this thread is showing anything of the sort and when on track has been civil.

Agreed, just knew it would come up with everyone else as soon as Wales were involved - like all the times Wales have been involved in an offside or forward pass .

Of course it would. Major talking points always come up.

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just an example mikey that there were people truly outraged about it. Still don't think this thread is showing anything of the sort and when on track has been civil.

Agreed, just knew it would come up with everyone else as soon as Wales were involved - like all the times Wales have been involved in an offside or forward pass .

The circumstances are different, and what happened at the end of that game has raised genuine questions about sin-binnings, uncontested scrums, and how to avoid a situation where the penalised team actually benefits from the sin-binning. It's coincidental that it happened in a Wales game. Unless, of course, you're painfully thin-skinned.

mikey_dragon wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:There is no way a team with Wales' resources and playing pool should resort to that sort of thing to beat a team like Georgia, if indeed any of the stuff I've been reading is true, and thats a big IF.

All good points.
Scotland 165,000 players.
Samoa 12,000 players.

All good points, but our victory was without controversy

And the last time we played Georgia we ran in 6 tries scoring 43 points, but by all means try to derail the discussion with WUMery if it makes you feel better.

I suspected foul play at first, but seeing as there is more evidence to suggest Brown was struggling and none to back up he was warming up to come back on, I’m going to have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I see some people saying he should scrummage with cramp though? Not a chance. Scrummaging is hard enough anyway, without carrying niggles. I say that as a lock, where a prop is harder (particularly one the size of Brown).

In summary, nothing to answer to for me, unless some evidence shows Leon Brown comfortably warming up.

RiscaGame wrote:I suspected foul play at first, but seeing as there is more evidence to suggest Brown was struggling and none to back up he was warming up to come back on, I’m going to have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I see some people saying he should scrummage with cramp though? Not a chance. Scrummaging is hard enough anyway, without carrying niggles. I say that as a lock, where a prop is harder (particularly one the size of Brown).

In summary, nothing to answer to for me, unless some evidence shows Leon Brown comfortably warming up.

If someone is genuinely injured or cramping badly they can't be expected to scrummage. Hence I like the idea of bringing the prop back on and letting the other team pick a player to leave the pitch.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just an example mikey that there were people truly outraged about it. Still don't think this thread is showing anything of the sort and when on track has been civil.

Agreed, just knew it would come up with everyone else as soon as Wales were involved - like all the times Wales have been involved in an offside or forward pass .

The circumstances are different, and what happened at the end of that game has raised genuine questions about sin-binnings, uncontested scrums, and how to avoid a situation where the penalised team actually benefits from the sin-binning. It's coincidental that it happened in a Wales game. Unless, of course, you're painfully thin-skinned.

Well that would be you then, trying to call me out every time you get all flustered. Have you accepted that I was right about Pivac yet?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

All good points, but our victory was without controversy

Makes a change. Congratulations on your win over a tier 3 team .

mikey_dragon wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

All good points, but our victory was without controversy

Makes a change. Congratulations on your win over a tier 3 team .

Thanks congratulations on picking a bunch of rookies and mugging a win from Georgia.

Just rewatched the final minutes of that game because to be honest I had utterly tuned out to the dirge that was being played on the pitch. Having rewatched that debacle I have came to the conclusion that this whole situation stinks.

Shame on Wales. Having been conned by France in the 6N I really thought that sort of nonsense would have been beneath your coaching staff. Oh well. See you guys in February.

Thanks .

It is a sticky situation but I guess we learnt to do it from France, despite the fact we couldn't put Brown back on the pitch. See you in February. I hope your scrum is up to it because we're pretty clever in that area .