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.
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.
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:
“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.
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.
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.
etienne marais
Guest
MYSTERY STILL UNRESOLVED: In this morning's press briefing, scrum coach Pieter de Villiers fields a question from a journalist regarding Trevor Nyakane's value in the RWC squad. De Villiers confirms the understanding that a LH that can play TH is vary valuable, on the grounds that upon a 3rd prop replacement, that player, if able to play at tight head, circumvents the scrums going to uncontested. The perfect opportunity to get the answer to the confounding mystery. Here is the track: https://soundcloud.com/rugby365/bok-injuries (the exchange starts at 09:30) Then, after de Villiers' answer, not a single journalist asks the blatantly obvious follow-up question; as to why Nyakane did not come on as TH against Australia, in order to continue with contested scrums. Perfect opportinity lost. Are these journalists dumb, scared, or just very forgetful?
RobC
Roar Guru
Thanks for the post, sharminator. Sorry late comment from me My question is about Trevor N. This year he was starting THP, but MarcelvdM took over, as Trevor ended as reserve THP by end April. It looks as if that was trialled but not successful. If I recall correct, most Bulls scrums up to that point were poor. Then he started as loosie against Lions, then two more. After that the last 3 matches as reserve LHP behind Greyling Mellett. The SB reserve LHP must be the starting loosie for one of the top two scrummaging teams. Im not convinced its Trevor N. Perhaps the selection was on quota It seems although he played THP before, there seems little confidence in his form. Too bad, as it was 8 on 7
Campbell Watts
Guest
Jez, Here's a conspiracy theory for you: Mayer had watched his team run out of steam at the end of last weeks game and lose, thus came up with the crack-pot idea of going to uncontested scrums as a way of preserving energy for his forwards and slowing the game down in the hope of holding off the fast-finishing AB's????? Any takers?? It would explain his unusual comments at the end of the game - he was glossing over the fact that he had instructed the officials to go to non contested scrums!
Daffyd
Roar Rookie
Sharminator, I don't think it is quite as clear as you say -- and I read 3.5(k) differently. If i recall correctly, scrums were being contested, then because of rib injury (&/or blood bin, whichever) an injured but suitable front row player was replaced with an unsuitable front row player. Let's revisit 2.3(k) "When 23 players are nominated for a match, or if the Union having jurisdiction over a match or a match organiser decides that where uncontested scrums are ordered as a result of there being no suitably trained and experienced front row replacement for any reason the team concerned shall not be entitled to replace the player whose departure caused uncontested scrum. It is for me, explicit: "there being no suitably trained and experienced front row replacement for any reason the team concerned shall not be entitled to replace the player." It doesn't mention untrained or inexperienced props being able to be used and still being allowed to have a replacement on the field. and the phrase "for any reason" is also critical: "For any reason", whether blood bin, concussion, red card, yellow card -- if there is a replacement for any reason -- it does not be entitle a team to replace the player whose departure caused uncontested scrum. If taken at face value: If you don't have a suitable player for the front row and as a result uncontested scrums are called you are not entitled to replace the player for any reason -- no exceptions. If what you say is the intent to continue with a replacement for uncontested scrums and the blood bin has been suggested was the reason the 'Boks used to get a sub on then 3.5 (k) should be re-worded along these lines: "When 23 players are nominated for a match, or if the Union having jurisdiction over a match or a match organiser decides that where uncontested scrums are ordered as a result of there being no suitably trained and experienced front row replacement, the team concerned shall not be entitled to replace the player whose departure caused uncontested scrum. If the team can field an untrained or inexperienced front row replacement they may replace the player whose departure caused uncontested scrum.They may also replace a player for blood bin or concussion." From the discussion on this post I think this area needs clarification by World Rugby, but also, I'd like to hear more from SA coaching staff and the officials on the day.
Derm
Roar Guru
I would still argue that Garces got it wrong in allowing Nyakane onto the pitch in the first place. What should have happened when Koch left the field since it was going to be a scrum in next play was to have asked if there was a suitable replacement for Koch. If SA were going to nominate Nyakane as front row replacement but couldn't play TH, and as a result it would have to be uncontested scrums, then Garces should probably have invoked Law 3.5 (k) "When 23 players are nominated for a match, or if the Union having jurisdiction over a match or a match organiser decides that where uncontested scrums are ordered as a result of there being no suitably trained and experienced front row replacement for any reason the team concerned shall not be entitled to replace the player whose departure caused uncontested scrums." And then 3.5 (m) (m) If there are no further front row replacements available when a front row player leaves the field of play, is sent off or temporarily suspended, uncontested scrums will be ordered. 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.
Derm
Roar Guru
I'm not sure if that's quite right. You quoted above Law 3.5 (t) “3.5 The front row – replacements and substitutions (t) If uncontested scrums have been ordered and a team has utilised all its permitted replacements/ substitutes and a front row player is then injured, that player cannot be replaced.” That is after the fact. Uncontested scrums had not been ordered, so the Law does not apply in this instance. Rather it is Law 3.5 (k) which is relevant in this circumstance: (k) When 23 players are nominated for a match, or if the Union having jurisdiction over a match or a match organiser decides that where uncontested scrums are ordered as a result of there being no suitably trained and experienced front row replacement for any reason the team concerned shall not be entitled to replace the player whose departure caused uncontested scrums. And then 3.5 (m) (m) If there are no further front row replacements available when a front row player leaves the field of play, is sent off or temporarily suspended, uncontested scrums will be ordered. 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.
Te Rangatira
Guest
Hmmm... if Meyer was thinking like you... no wonder the Bok lost... Non contested scrums benefitted the Abs...Meyer stuffed up...
chris
Guest
Even when commenting on scrums reading these posts can be as confusing as watching scrums.
somer
Guest
Great article Sharminator. Well after reading all this the only reasoning I can guess at (which some others may have alluded to), is it that the Boks may not have had much confidence in Nyakane performing adequately as an international TH. No doubt until Whitelock's return (8 min?) the Boks would have had an obvious advantage, but after Whitelock's return maybe they anticipated a clear advantage to the ABs scrum for the remaining 11 mins of the game? If this is the case then it still remains an odd decision, surely having the AB scrum on the rack 5m from their goal line was a clear and potentially game-ending advantage that should never have been passed up, especially given there was so little game time remaining.
etienne marais
Guest
Always good to chat to you Old Bugger. And thank you for helping test our assumptions on this one. Have a sporting weekend. Cheers.
Old Bugger
Guest
Fair enough etienne - I can acknowledge that position. Cheers
etienne marais
Guest
Old Bugger, With all the known facts distilled, and the seen in the context of the laws, there can only be one conclusion: Boks made the decision. The reason why Sharm asks the question is because it was just such a bizarre decision to make at that time, a decision that arguably influenced the momentum of the game irreversibly. There are two possibilities: 1) Bok management do not fully know, or understand the law. 2) There is some "undeclared" issue with Nyakane. Either way, the transparent and honest relationship that Mr Meyer had fostered with the fans, has (thus far) not been honoured in this instance. Bok management should take to the podium, or accept that their motivations and/or competence on this issue can be legitimately doubted.
Old Bugger
Guest
Sharm If you have all these answers then why ask the question in your blog title, in the first place?? Perhaps a more important question to ask with the advent of RWC, is can this incident re-occur and what can be done by the authorities to see that it does not turn the match, into a farce?? I suggest a farce because it seems to me that your query, still remains unanswered even though you have determined there is no valid reason why the SB management, decided on no-contest scrums....I'm not a conspiratorial theorist but gees I agree, there's something from left-field regarding this incident.
Sharminator
Roar Rookie
Hi Old Bugger, it actually makes no difference if Koch left as a blood bin or an injury replacement. The law regarding replacements is different for front rowers than for any other players on the team. If a front rower is forced off the field (for injury or blood) the team have a right to replace that player with any other front row players they have left, including a front rower who has already been replaced. No replaced player in another position is allowed to come back on the field, front rowers are. In addition a front row player who is "suitably trained and experienced" can come on in any position in the front row. Having a nominated replacement loosehad, hooker and tighthead is a formality teams must comply with to start the game, but there are no legal requirements about where they have to play, if they come on. During the game, if the loosehead gets injured you can send on your nominated hooker to replace him (as long as that hooker is suitably trained and experienced as a loosehead), leaving your nominated loosehead as a second replacement loosehead. However, if your front rowers are only "suitably trained and experienced" in their nominated position, and a starting front row and his nominated replacement are both forced off injured, a front rower who is not "suitably trained and experience" may come on in that position, with the game continuing with non contested scrums (as happened on Saturday). So bascially for a game to go to uncontested scrums there have to be at least 2 players for one specific front row position who have been forced off by injury or yellow or red card. You might have noticed that later in the game the blonde South African reserve hooker also came on at prop (not sure if this was forced by injury or not, if it was forced by injury it would also have resulted in uncontested scrums, however, since scrums were already uncontested, SA might have decided to replace The Beast. As long as you have front row players left to replace front row players, you can replace them. What you cannot do is replace a front row player with a non front row player. If you have 4 front row players injured, and only 2 front row players left on the field, you may not bring on a flanker or centre or any other player, and have to play one man down, with 14 men. I went throught the Bulls team lists today to check where Nayakane played during the season. Nayakane actually started at Tighthead more than Loosehead during the season for the Blue Bulls. Again makes you wonder why SA management would ask for non contested scrums with a player who can obviously play both sides of the scrum. Starting Tighthead 5 times Starting Loosehead 4 times Replacement Tighthead 3 times Replacement Loosehead 4 times
Old Bugger
Guest
etienne Then the "selling point" from SB Management had to be TN gets listed on the team-sheet as the 2nd TH and not listed as the 2nd LH with intentions to play TH - that is why team coaches are responsible for team-sheet listings and not referees. I am not challenging whether TN can play TH or LH. I am challenging where he gets listed on the team-sheet and therefore, what is the significance of the team-sheet in this situation. IMO, I don't believe players have the ability to firstly challenge their coach's decisions or secondly, challenge a submitted team-sheet so TN had no rights to mention anything especially, when a matter of safety is at stake. I would imagine SB as captain may have wanted to discuss the issue with Garces but then I believe, this would have drawn RM into the conversation and the matter may have introduced if TN's presence on the paddock is valid, under these circumstances....the word "may" being discretionary . Perhaps, this could explain why SB was busy calming his players rather than approaching Garces. Of course it is all a matter of one's opinion but Sharm does ask why did the SB's go to uncontested scrums? Its obvious that until the SB management announce their reason(s), then Sharm's question will probably remain, unresolved.....so, for our own interpretation, I think we just need to look outside the envelope and make some assumptions - mine is I think the SB coaching team out-smarted the AB's in this instance, to preserve a 15 on 15 player ratio, on the paddock. And I say, bloody good on them.....but, I suspect RM may want to interject the next time such an incident occurs, irrespective of who's the opposition. I also expect WR will be issuing global edicts advising national bodies of the significance of the team-sheet listing and if teams are unable to adhere to their own submission, then they face the consequences of not only non-contested scrums but also a player less, on the field. I think that would also send a message to teams who may have intentions to pursue no-contest scrums through front-row injuries - by all means do so, but you may have to do it with 14 players.
Sharminator
Roar Rookie
Update. Checked where Nayakane played during the season. Nayakane actually started at Tighthead more than Loosehead during the season for the Blue Bulls. Again makes you wonder why SA management would ask for non contested scrums with a player who can obviously play both sides of the scrum. Starting Tighthead 5 times Starting Loosehead 4 times Replacement Tighthead 3 times Replacement Loosehead 4 times
Sharminator
Roar Rookie
Sorry, yeah Blue Bulls. Nayakane actually started at Tighthead more than loosehead during the season. Starting Tighthead 5 times Starting Loosehead 4 times Replacement Tighthead 3 times Replacement Loosehead 4 times
pim
Guest
Trevor played for the Bulls this year and did play TH on accasions
Kia Kaha
Roar Guru
Great read with some equally insightful comments. Still remains a mystery to me though the precise events but at least I can understand the motives more. I think...
etienne marais
Guest
Hi again Old Bugger, "IMO, I think the SB management realised the ramifications and immediately issued advice for non-contested scrums when they sent TN onto the field……" The thing is (as per Sharminator's very good comment and reference to the laws, right above), had the SB management "anticipated", any such "ramifications", this very "anticipation" would have been based on an erroneous understanding of the relevant laws; TN, when he came on would (should) have been perfectly entitled to go in at TH (since he is trained and experienced for the position), and law 3.5(k) could not have been invoked by the official. So, if the SB management team thought that TN going onto the field would have forced uncontested scrums, and therefore bring into action law 3.5(k), they were wrong (according to the three relevant laws). If SB management, however, do not consider TN as a TH, then, obviously, the whole situation changes, and all of my questions are answered. [well, sort of, because if this is so, I would still like to know why they would not consider him as a TH, when that was one of the specific "selling points" for initially including him in the 49-man squad - he has done well on both sides of the scrum this year, and his discipline issues seems to have been sorted, he is a valuable and versatile player, whether at TH or LH]