The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Why did we go to uncontested scrums in the Springboks versus All Blacks game?

Roar Rookie
29th July, 2015
Advertisement
The All Blacks' haka is one of the most famous in the world. (AP Photo/Themba Hadebe)
Roar Rookie
29th July, 2015
112
4437 Reads

In the weekend’s Springboks versus All Blacks game, the decision was made in the 61st minute to go to uncontested scrums.

At the time the All Blacks had a five-metre scrum on their own line, after two South African attacking five-metre scrums, the first of which resulted in a penalty, and the decision by South Africa for another scrum.

The second saw Schalk Burger pick up the ball and drive for the line, with prop Vincent Koch eventually taking a hit up, knocking on, and splitting his head open, requiring a blood replacement.

I have seen comments on social media about the “decision by the referee” to go to uncontested scrums, particularly by South Africans complaining that at the time they were on top in the scrums, and that this “decision” affected the outcome.

Bearing in mind that the South Africans had pushed New Zealand back in the last two scrums, being allowed to push in the following scrum, even though it was a New Zealand put in, probably would have benefitted the Springboks, allowing them to put more pressure on New Zealand.

There were several more uncontested scrums in the remaining 19 minutes of the game.

So, what happened?

In terms of personnel, South Africa started with a front row of Tendai Mtawarira, Bismarck du Plessis and Jannie du Plessis.

Advertisement

Jannie du Plessis came off at halftime due to injury, to be replaced by the designated replacement tighthead prop, Vincent Koch. Koch came off in the 61st minute due to blood, and was replaced by the designated replacement loosehead prop, Trevor Nyakane.

When Nyakane came on, referee Jérôme Garcès of France received a message via his earpiece to go to uncontested scrums. The strange thing is that (as the South African commentators noted) Nyakane has started various games as a tighthead prop.

Several people have commentated that the referee (or the third match official) decided on uncontested scrums as Nyakane was a designated replacement loosehead prop, and therefore scrums could only continue if he came on as a replacement for the Springbok loosehead.

The idea is that as the starting Springbok tighthead, du Plessis, had left the field, and his replacement tighthead, Koch, had also left the field injured, it was obligatory for the game to go to uncontested scrums, as Nayakane was not the designated tighthead replacement.

The implication is that a replacement front-row bench player can only come on as a replacement for their specific position.

Firstly, the laws of rugby say that it is up to each team, not the referee, to decide who is “suitably trained and experienced” to play each position in the front row.

Secondly, there is nothing in the laws of rugby which prevents a “suitably trained and experienced” front row replacement from coming on and playing any other position in the front row.

Advertisement

Until 2009, in first class and international matches, a team was required to have 22 players, with two front row replacements, generally a hooker and a prop able to play both sides of the scrum.

This law was changed in 2009 due to an increasing number of uncontested scrums, especially at the top level, and the abuse of this. After one front row replacement some teams were bringing on a flanker as a second front-row injury replacement, seeing games going to uncontested scrums, reducing any benefit the opposition may have from a stronger scrum, and seeing the team bringing on the extra flanker having the perceived benefit of an extra faster player.

The IRB therefore changed the laws regarding front row replacements, increasing match day squads at the top level to 23, with three specified front row replacements, one for each front row player who starts the game.

The relevant law is ‘Law 3.5 The front row – replacements and substitutions’, which can be viewed in full here.

Firstly, referee Garcès was told by the third match official on the sideline (in charge of keeping time and managing substitutes and replacements) that South Africa did not have another replacement tighthead prop, and that the player coming on was only a loosehead, so scrums therefore had to be uncontested.

Why would this happen? This would only happen when officials from the Springbok camp told the third match official that the replacement player was not capable of playing tighthead.

3.5 (m) is very clear about this:

Advertisement

“It is not the responsibility of the referee to determine the suitability of trained front row replacements nor their availability, as this is a team responsibility.”

That responsability is up to each team. But for some reason, despite Trevor Nyakane having played tighthead prop at Super rugby level, starting in this position five or six times for the Sharks this year, a South African official decided to inform the third referee Nyakane was not “suitably trained or experienced” to play tighthead and that there should be uncontested scrums.

I saw a similar situation happen last year in another international game, where a team had its two starting props injured, then two replacement props injured.

After the two replacement props were injured uncontested scrums were called for, with the injury-prone team’s hooker coming into the front row on the field in the position of a prop.

As the hooker came on the third referee was notified by the injury-prone team that they had no more prop replacements left, and the following scrums were uncontested.

The difference was that in this game the hooker was not, and had never been a prop. Nyakane has played first class Super Rugby games at tighthead this year!

Secondly, a team must have at least one replacement for each front row position at the start of the match. This does not mean that a front row replacement specified for one position in the front row cannot play in another position.

Advertisement

Many people are claiming that the match went to uncontested scrums because Nyakane was the specified loosehead prop, and therefore “could not” come on to replace Koch as a second replacement tighthead.

This simply is not in the law.

A loosehead can switch to tighthead or hooker, a hooker to loosehead or tighthead, a tighthead to loosehead or hooker, and a suitably trained and experienced front row forward, such as a starting flanker may also play change to the front row. The same is true for the replacements, although nominated as a replacement hooker, or tighthead, that player may come on as a second replacement loosehead, as long as they are “a suitable trained and experienced”.

I’ve seen a myriad of international or first-class games where a player on the field has swapped sides of the scrum, or where a nominated replacement prop for one side of the scrum has come on as a second replacement for the other side of the scrum.

There have even been some hookers who also play prop, and have swapped between those positions during a game (the most notable recent example being ex-South African captain John Smit).

There is nothing in the laws of rugby which states that it is obligatory for the referee to invoke uncontested scrums if the desginated replacement tighthead or loosehead prop is injured, and the person they replaced was also injured and is unable to come back onto the field.

If there is a suitably trained and experienced front rower, either on the field or among the remaining two replacement front rowers, to replace that player, then contested scrums may continue.

Advertisement

The referee in this game was French, so I doubt he knew that Nyakane has played tighthead, and he was simply following the instructions from the third referee, who was told by a South African official that the player coming on was not capable of playing tighthead.

South Africa were entitled to say this, if they didn’t believe that Nyakane was up to the standard necessary to play tighthead against New Zealand, but considering the struggles the All Black scrum was having at the time, I think the decision actually backfired, as they were able to exert less pressure on the All Blacks.

Maybe a solution would be that teams have to nominate not just a first replacement for each front row position, but also state before the match all of the front row positions a front row replacement is able to play.

If each front row replacement can only play their nominated front row position, that is fine and within the law, but a team shouldn’t be able to decide depending on how the game is going if a replacement front rower is up to playing another front row position or not.

close