End of Uncontested scrums in France

Stev_o

End of uncontested scrums in France
Friday 04th July 2008
No more smoke screens: scrums in France will be the real deal from now on

The French Rugby Federation (FFR) has taken a huge step towards ending the abuse of the rule regarding uncontested scrums.

News from the National Referees Congress held in Toulouse on Friday and Saturday is that the FFR has informed the International Rugby Board (IRB) of the French decision to change to rules applying to the replacement of specialist front-row players in France's domestic competition, the Top 14.

Uncontested scrums were a massive talking point during the 2007/08 Top 14 season, with many coaches accused of abusing the rules as soon as their scrum was under pressure.

In the letter sent to the IRB, René Hourquet, head of the referees in France, states that from August 1 the French will be reverting back to the rule whereby if a team cannot replace an injured front-row player with a specialist in the same position, the side will have to continue with fourteen men.

Up until now, regulations stated that each front row position must be covered on the bench and coaches may not make two 'tactical' replacements (one of the two must be due to injury).

In the case where two replacements are made and an non-specialist is obliged to play in a front row position, the referee signalled the use of uncontested scrums.

But faced with increasing the problems caused by 'fake' injuries, the FFR has repeatedly signalled their concerns to the world rugby's governing body. The usual reply received is said to indicate that the problem was isolated to France and no action would be taken at an international level.

The FFR has by consequence decided to 'fix' their problem alone. No doubt the Top 14 coaches will have plenty to say when they return from their July holidays.

_______

Its a good step by the FFR as one thing i absolutely loath is uncontested scrums and it makes my blood boil when teams actually use the loop whole to gain a advantage ie Wasps vs Leicester in the GP Final.

The only thing i would of thought would be easier is to have a requirement to have a prop as 23/24 sub who would be required to play if both props had come off.

toomevara

Great move, should be adopted across the board, as France isn't the only place where that sort of blatant gamesmanship has been seen of late.

tHE vAGGABOND

Excellent!

I only hope they adopt it at Junior level, so lightweights like UCD cant do it all season

Inquitus

So this doesnt do away with Uncontested Scrums? instead it penalises the side causing them with a 1 man penalty?

Great idea

Steffano2002

We're just great in France!

toomevara

Inquitus wrote: »

So this doesnt do away with Uncontested Scrums? instead it penalises the side causing them with a 1 man penalty?

Great idea

Be interested to hear what your suggestion would be. Personally I think this is a rather neat solution to an increasingly prevalent problem, and tbh, I reckon the penalty will rarely have to be applied because teams will be reluctant to resort to any front-row skullduggery given the sanction.

zAbbo

From the 7 subs, it will probably mean a full replacement of front rowers on the bench

Inquitus

toomevara wrote: »

Be interested to hear what your suggestion would be. Personally I think this is a rather neat solution to an increasingly prevalent problem, and tbh, I reckon the penalty will rarely have to be applied because teams will be reluctant to resort to any front-row skullduggery given the sanction.

You missed my point. I think it is a great idea!

toomevara

Inquitus wrote: »

You missed my point. I think it is a great idea!

Apologies, what a mong...*beats self relentlessly and without mercy*

Stev_o

Im still in favour of having a 23/24 sub prop who in case of two substitutions would have to be used.

suppafly

Stev_o wrote: »

Im still in favour of having a 23/24 sub prop who in case of two substitutions would have to be used.

yeah i think that sounds like a fairly decent idea too

toomevara

suppafly wrote: »

yeah i think that sounds like a fairly decent idea too

In theory yes, but are there enough qualified props, with the verasatilty required to play hooker, loose or tight at the drop of a hat?...I think not, good props are becoming rarer than hens teeth in union these days.

Imo, putting someone in that position would be dangerous and unnecessary..I think the french solution is best...

thebossanova

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

Excellent!

I only hope they adopt it at Junior level, so lightweights like UCD cant do it all season

I'm fairly sure UCD are not doing this on purpose. Being in Trinity I can sympathise with them(only a little bit mind!). Props are not easy to come by for college teams and we often struggle to get 3 capable front rowers for a game. What would be the point of penalising a team because some of their players cant play because of injury or other reasons, like not having props in the first place. There are still 15 guys on the pitch who want to play rugby against you, definitely for the love of the sport if they're playing J4 level!