2018-2019 Champions Cup

Squidgy Black

Deleted User wrote: »

This really should be bigger news. This is a premiership team in a professional league unable to field a team, that's a pretty shocking indictment of the health of the sport right there as far as I'm concerned.

Even if it's silly buggers - the fact that it's being discussed as a possibility is worrying.

Has this happened before in a top14/pro14/prem/SuperRugby game before?

The issue doesn't really lie with Newcastle, the issue lies with the ECPR.

They've been struck by a raft of injuries in short succession, and are trying to register another TH but it's looking like the ECPR won't allow them to because it's past the window.

Eod100

Rigor Mortis wrote: »

Definitely cant think of anyone in the Newcastle coaching staff with a history of using player welfare rules as to create a tactical advantage.

Nope, not one person.

How did I know that was something to do with Bloodgate without knowing who it was.. 10 years ago next year, if anything feels longer

Buer

Eod100 wrote: »

How did I know that was something to do with Bloodgate without knowing who it was.. 10 years ago next year, if anything feels longer

It's a shame he has form in pulling some dubious stunts because, to my mind, he is comfortably the best head coach in England.

The work he did with Leicester, Quins and Newcastle has been nothing short of superb.

First Up

stephen_n wrote: »

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Keep an eye on this tonight




https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/european-cup/newcastle-may-have-to-play-with-14-men-due-to-prop-crisis-1.3723083?mode=amp

Uncontested scrums v playing with 14 men, don’t think that’s any sort of advantage really.

Well it means you would pick backrow forwards or centres in the front row.

Eod100

Buer wrote: »

It's a shame he has form in pulling some dubious stunts because, to my mind, he is comfortably the best head coach in England.

The work he did with Leicester, Quins and Newcastle has been nothing short of superb.

Yeah think he really damaged his reputation with that though..

Buer

Eod100 wrote: »

Yeah think he really damaged his reputation with that though..

Oh completely. He's damaged goods and there's a reason he is at Newcastle rather than a bigger job. His career is very much a case of what might have been. I think he'd have had the England job at some point, probably when Martin Johnson was completely ill prepared for it.

But his record is exceptional. He won the Heineken Cup twice and league 4 times with Leicester, building a completely new team.

He joined Quins when they were relegated, brought them back up and finished 2nd in the league in his final season there, reaching the European knock outs.

And then he joined Newcastle when they were in the Championship, got them back up and consolidated before getting them into trophy contention and Champions Cup rugby where they're 2/2 this season. This is all despite the club struggling to attract any player of significance in years and being on the verge of financial collapse at times.

He's a no nonsense guy who gets on with it. Mike Ross speaks about him a bit in his book and credits him with being a massive influence on his career (and actually making him). But also that Richards was a surprisingly quiet figure. I think many get the impression of an old school bully type but he's just the ultimate pragmatist who cuts his cloth accordingly and gets the most out of his players.

If you look at that Quins team which was really hotly tipped in 2009 to win silverware, the players they had were nearly all guys who made their name under Richards aside from Gary Botha and Nick Evans neither of whom were particularly high profile internationals before coming to Europe. What he has achieved is hugely impressive.

Podge_irl

First Up wrote: »

Well it means you would pick backrow forwards or centres in the front row.

You still have to pick designated front row players in the front row. There is no way playing with 14 for a whole match is advantageous, even if you can pick weaker scrummagers/not have to worry about the scrum.

troyzer

Podge_irl wrote: »

You still have to pick designated front row players in the front row. There is no way playing with 14 for a whole match is advantageous, even if you can pick weaker scrummagers/not have to worry about the scrum.

Why can't you just pick an extra centre or something and not have them contest the scrum?

Genuinely curious.

thomond2006

troyzer wrote: »

Why can't you just pick an extra centre or something and not have them contest the scrum?

Genuinely curious.

Front row players are officially designated as specialist front row players in squads and matchday lineups. Obvious H&S issues aside, you can't select non-designated players to play at prop or hooker.

troyzer

thomond2006 wrote: »

Front row players are officially designated as front row players in squads and matchday lineups. Obvious H&S issues aside, you can't select non-designated players in the front row.

I'm aware of that but what happens if you have injuries in-game and are down to two front rowers?

I can't remember that happening but does someone move up into the front row or do they just have the uncontested scrum with two players?

If it's the latter, then why can't you just have a 15 man team with two players in the front row?

thomond2006

troyzer wrote: »

I'm aware of that but what happens if you have injuries in-game and are down to two front rowers?

I can't remember that happening but does someone like up in the front row or do they just have the uncontested scrum with two players?

If it's the latter, then why can't you just have a 15 man team with two players in the front row?

A rule was introduced a few seasons back that once you become unable to contest scrums you cannot substitute the final recognised front rower that leaves the field i.e. you're down to 14 for the rest of the game.

It follows that if you cannot name a starting XV with three designated front-rowers, you would be forced to start 14 players.

I suppose anyone can play front-row when scrums are uncontested but I imagine for defensive reasons you would line up your regular pack.

The Lost Sheep

troyzer wrote: »

Why can't you just pick an extra centre or something and not have them contest the scrum?

Genuinely curious.

You must have suitably qualified players for a scrum to be contested.

troyzer wrote: »

I'm aware of that but what happens if you have injuries in-game and are down to two front rowers?

I can't remember that happening but does someone like up in the front row or do they just have the uncontested scrum with two players?

If it's the latter, then why can't you just have a 15 man team with two players in the front row?

If you have injuries in game and go to two players capable of playing front row. you go down to 14 and its uncontested scrums.

errlloyd

thomond2006 wrote: »

I suppose anyone can play front-row when scrums are uncontested but I imagine for defensive reasons you would line up your regular pack.

Wait, do you not still have to have 3 front rowers on the field. I think the law says you do.

IE Tighthead goes down, he goes off. AND you have to bring off a back and put on your spare hooker.

thomond2006

errlloyd wrote: »

Wait, do you not still have to have 3 front rowers on the field. I think the law says you do.

IE Tighthead goes down, he goes off. AND you have to bring off a back and put on your spare hooker.

Maybe. Perhaps TLS can answer this?

errlloyd

thomond2006 wrote: »

Maybe. Perhaps TLS can answer this?

I got it.

Law Application Guidelines
Uncontested Scrums
(a) Scrums will become uncontested if either team cannot field a suitably trained front row or if the referee so orders. (b) Unions/match organisers may determine whether or not a game may start or continue with uncontested scrums. (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. (d) In a squad of 23 players, or at the discretion of the Union/match organiser, a player whose departure has caused the referee to order uncontested scrums cannot be replaced. (e) If they are available, a team must have three front row players in the front row at all times. In an uncontested scrum, only when there is no available front row replacement or substitute is any other player permitted to play in the front row. (f) If, as a result of a front row player being temporarily suspended, another player has to be nominated by the team to leave the playing area to enable an available front row player to come on, the nominated player may not return until the period of suspension ends. (g) If, as a result of a front row player being sent off, another player has to be nominated by the team to leave the playing area to enable an available front row player to come on, the nominated player may act as a replacement/substitute.

I read that as meaning that if for example you lose both tightheads, but still have both hookers and one loosehead, you have to have both hookers on the field even though the scrum is uncontested.

aloooof

troyzer wrote: »

I'm aware of that but what happens if you have injuries in-game and are down to two front rowers?

I can't remember that happening but does someone like up in the front row or do they just have the uncontested scrum with two players?

If it's the latter, then why can't you just have a 15 man team with two players in the front row?

I think it happened in a Wales game a couple of years ago where they had no replacement prop due to injuries so the scrums were declared uncontested, and they then subbed in the replacement hooker to stand in the uncontested scrum. Suggests it has to always be a front row replacement, but I'm not 100% sure on the ruling.

EDIT: errlloyd answered it above.

troyzer

Nobody has answered my question.

If you're down to 14 players, does the uncontested scrum only have two players in the front row?

*errlloyd just did.

shootermacg

troyzer wrote: »

Nobody has answered my question.

If you're down to 14 players, does the uncontested scrum only have two players in the front row?

Does it really matter?

errlloyd

shootermacg wrote: »

Does it really matter?

Yeah it makes a huge difference to be fair. You're reduced to 14, you have an uncontested scrum under your posts. You definitely want to have a full backline to defend it. But I think the law forces you to still pack down with 8.

aloooof

errlloyd wrote: »

I read that as meaning that if for example you lose both tightheads, but still have both hookers and one loosehead, you have to have both hookers on the field even though the scrum is uncontested.

This then begs the question are props considered designated tighthead/loosehead? What if you have have, say, Porter available who has played both sides of the scrum, but would favour an uncontested scrum?

It's obviously in the spirit of the game for the scrum to be contested. But is it in the laws?

errlloyd

aloooof wrote: »

This then begs the question are props considered designated tighthead/loosehead? What if you have have, say, Porter available who has played both sides of the scrum, but would favour an uncontested scrum?

It's obviously in the spirit of the game for the scrum to be contested. But is it in the laws?

Yes, that law differentiates.

Scenario 1.
During the match a team replaced both their props through injury. The replacement TH gets injured.

If the team cannot field a suitably trained front row uncontested scrums must be ordered. The injured TH player cannot be replaced. The team lose a player.
The remaining front row substitutes (hooker/LH) must be used in the front row of the uncontested scrums and another player must be nominated to leave the field.
The team plays with 14 players until the end of the game.
Both teams must form with eight players in the scrum.

The Lost Sheep

thomond2006 wrote: »

Maybe. Perhaps TLS can answer this?

errlloyd wrote: »

I got it.

I read that as meaning that if for example you lose both tightheads, but still have both hookers and one loosehead, you have to have both hookers on the field even though the scrum is uncontested.

Yes that is the case.

troyzer wrote: »

Nobody has answered my question.

If you're down to 14 players, does the uncontested scrum only have two players in the front row?

*errlloyd just did.

How could you only have 2 players in front row? In uncontested scrums its now 8 v 8 with the team with 14 players losing a player in the backs for scrums.

aloooof wrote: »

This then begs the question are props considered designated tighthead/loosehead? What if you have have, say, Porter available who has played both sides of the scrum, but would favour an uncontested scrum?

It's obviously in the spirit of the game for the scrum to be contested. But is it in the laws?

They are designated Loosehead and Tighthead but
Its in the laws
Where there IS a suitably trained front row player available to be used:
2) If there is another player on the field who is suitably trained to play in the ‘vacant’ front row position, then, at the next scrum, that player moves into the front row and the game continues with contested scrums

3) If there is no such player on the field, but there IS a suitably trained player on the reserves/replacements bench, then, at the next scrum:
a. A player is nominated to leave the field
b. The suitably trained replacement player joins the game
c. Contested scrums remain in force

Buer

aloooof wrote: »

This then begs the question are props considered designated tighthead/loosehead? What if you have have, say, Porter available who has played both sides of the scrum, but would favour an uncontested scrum?

It's obviously in the spirit of the game for the scrum to be contested. But is it in the laws?

For an example, some may recall Jack McGrath (who was originally a tighthead) playing the Ospreys about 7 years ago. We lost our starting and back up tightheads. McGrath was the back up loosehead.

Nigel Owens specifically asked him when he came on (to replace Hagan, I think?) whether he was capable of playing tighthead to which he answered he was and Owens accepted him as a tighthead prop on that basis, continuing the game.

I bet he bloody regretted that answer. The Ospreys pack popped him like a zit and he had a horrible time of it. I recall it was Paul James and Adam Jones at prop for the Ospreys, two of the best scrummagers around at the time.

aloooof

I've learned something new there, cheers Lost Sheep and Buer.

7 years ago, so that would've been before the 'bind' scrum rule as well, so it can't have been a pleasant afternoon for McGrath!

errlloyd

Btw, for those doing fantasy. Here is a list of all of this weeks squads.

https://www.epcrugby.com/champions-cup/matches/line-ups/

errlloyd

errlloyd wrote: »

Btw, for those doing fantasy. Here is a list of all of this weeks squads.

https://www.epcrugby.com/champions-cup/matches/line-ups/

OOooooooh thanks for reminding me. That's one for this afternoon, I forgot to change between round 1 and 2 but ended up having a belter by accident.

First Up

The options when a side runs out of props mid match is clear enough. But I don't think I've ever heard of a match starting with uncontested scrums.

Is that really being discussed as a possibility?

errlloyd

First Up wrote: »

The options when a side runs out of props mid match is clear enough. But I don't think I've ever heard of a match starting with uncontested scrums.

Is that really being discussed as a possibility?

Yes, both of the players that Newcastle have named at tighthead (starting and bench) are both injury concerns.

First Up

errlloyd wrote: »

Yes, both of the players that Newcastle have named at tighthead (starting and bench) are both injury concerns.

But surely the match can't be played in its entirety with uncontested scrums? The other teams in the group would be well entitled to object. If Newcastle can't field a team as required they should either negotiate a postponement or concede a walkover.

If the two props start (on field and on the bench) are "injury concerns", might they just play for a minute and then go off? I can't see European Rugby allowing that charade.

errlloyd

First Up wrote: »

But surely the match can't be played in its entirety with uncontested scrums? The other teams in the group would be well entitled to object. If Newcastle can't field a team as required they should either negotiate a postponement or concede a walkover.

If the two props start (on field and on the bench) are "injury concerns", might they just play for a minute and then go off? I can't see European Rugby allowing that charade.

Newcastle have asked to be allowed bring another player into their squad, but they are possibly playing silly buggers.

First Up

errlloyd wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

But surely the match can't be played in its entirety with uncontested scrums? The other teams in the group would be well entitled to object. If Newcastle can't field a team as required they should either negotiate a postponement or concede a walkover.

If the two props start (on field and on the bench) are "injury concerns", might they just play for a minute and then go off? I can't see European Rugby allowing that charade.

Newcastle have asked to be allowed bring another player into their squad, but they are possibly playing silly buggers.

If the rules allow for a player to be drafted in for emergencies that's OK. Certainly better than uncontested scrums.

Buer

errlloyd wrote: »

Newcastle have asked to be allowed bring another player into their squad, but they are possibly playing silly buggers.

We'll all be waiting to see one of the Newcastle props going off after 10 minutes and winking to the bench.

errlloyd

Buer wrote: »

We'll all be waiting to see one of the Newcastle props going off after 10 minutes and winking to the bench.

It's actually mad to rewatch it, but for all the deserved **** that Stuart Barnes gets, he did say immediately in commentary "who punched Tom Williams in the face, Tom Williams?"

Podge_irl

First Up wrote: »

But surely the match can't be played in its entirety with uncontested scrums? The other teams in the group would be well entitled to object. If Newcastle can't field a team as required they should either negotiate a postponement or concede a walkover.

If the two props start (on field and on the bench) are "injury concerns", might they just play for a minute and then go off? I can't see European Rugby allowing that charade.

I'd be more concerned with one team starting a match with 14 players than the whole thing having uncontested scrums.

First Up

Podge_irl wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

But surely the match can't be played in its entirety with uncontested scrums? The other teams in the group would be well entitled to object. If Newcastle can't field a team as required they should either negotiate a postponement or concede a walkover.

If the two props start (on field and on the bench) are "injury concerns", might they just play for a minute and then go off? I can't see European Rugby allowing that charade.

I'd be more concerned with one team starting a match with 14 players than the whole thing having uncontested scrums.

Well they couldn't play without a prop.

Podge_irl

First Up wrote: »

Well they couldn't play without a prop.

I'm not really following.

If Newcastle start with 14 they will, in all likelihood, sacrifice a flanker. But starting a match with 14 would be a much bigger issue than starting a match with uncontested scrums in terms of advantage.

Dubinusa

What happens if there's no hooker? An injury plague and you can't field a hooker! Do the line outs still happen?

The Lost Sheep

Dubinusa wrote: »

What happens if there's no hooker? An injury plague and you can't field a hooker! Do the line outs still happen?

Nothing in the laws states number2/hooker needs to throw ball into the lineout. It could be the full back if a team wanted it to.

Burkie1203

Newcastle have no TH on the bench and a LH at 3

Squidgy Black

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Newcastle have no TH on the bench and a LH at 3

I was planning on watching the Ulster game but to be honest I might watch this instead just to see how it all unfolds.

First Up

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Newcastle have no TH on the bench and a LH at 3

I was planning on watching the Ulster game but to be honest I might watch this instead just to see how it all unfolds.

Me too

troyzer

Poor attendance at both matches.

thomond2006

Newcastle leading by 3 at the break.

MikeCork2009

Connon (10) for Newcastle has had a good 1st half. Plus he's Irish

Synode

Crowds look brutal at both games. Unbelievable difference to the atmosphere at an Irish Province's Heineken Cup games

theoneeyedman

Synode wrote: »

Crowds look brutal at both games. Unbelievable difference to the atmosphere at an Irish Province's Heineken Cup games

What's the reason for such a poor attendance at the ulster game? I'd have thought that was a big traditional rugby area, West Wales? Shocking small crowd for supposedly a major European sports event.

Buer

theoneeyedman wrote: »

What's the reason for such a poor attendance at the ulster game? I'd have thought that was a big traditional rugby area, West Wales? Shocking small crowd for supposedly a major European sports event.

They lost their two opening games and are looking unlikely to qualify. Also, the Scarlets performances are well down overall in the league too

Still brutal.

thomond2006

Edinburgh are leading comfortably now.

Tigerandahalf

Buer wrote: »

They lost their two opening games and are looking unlikely to qualify. Also, the Scarlets performances are well down overall in the league too

Still brutal.

You have a small population base there in south wales. The Scarlets, Dragons and Ospreys are all pretty close. Look at Leinster with a 1 million population getting 18k supporters. There is no comparison. Add in Cardiff and Swansea in the top 2 divisions of the Premier League and you have huge competition. The Irish provinces don't have that.

Buer

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

You have a small population base there in south wales. The Scarlets, Dragons and Ospreys are all pretty close. Look at Leinster with a 1 million population getting 18k supporters. There is no comparison. Add in Cardiff and Swansea in the top 2 divisions of the Premier League and you have huge competition. The Irish provinces don't have that.

I'm aware (although Newport is nowhere near) and have made the same argument myself on here in the past. But this crowd is still very poor for what is a massive crunch game in a town which is considered the home of Welsh rugby by many.