Ive lived in South America for 10 years … and before Argie involvement in the TRC the big complaint was that Argentina wasnt allowed into the Tri Nations .. there were even some proposals (not sure how serious they were) about having an Argie team in a 7 nations, or replacing Italy, and playing out of Spain.

If you remember in the 90s Argentina was about the same level as Canada, Samoa and other 2nd tier teams.

With professionalism, players moving to Europa, and the natural ability of players like Pichot and Contemponi, Argentina improved, allowng them to win 3rd place in the 2007 RWC .. but Argentina were always calling for involvement in regular top tier competition…

They simply wont ever give up their spot in the TRC … as they had to fight too hard to get it.

If you want to be the best, you have to play the best regularly .. and the TRC allows Argentina to do that.

Not really the same as rugby is not a major sport in either the US or Brazil … wheras Basketball is one of the big 4 pro sports in the US .. even if it was only a college team at the Olympics.

The Brazil win was however officially the biggest upset since the world rugby rankings have been introduced though with the 42nd ranked team beating the 16th ranked team.

It does however also show the limitations of the rankings, as the Brazil only moved up 4 places to 38th, and the US only lose one spot, 16th to 17th ,,,

It was a very experimental US lineup of domestically based US players, with virtually no one from the US world cup squad apart from a few old heads on the bench, However, that isnt an excuse for the loss.

John Mitchell obviously completely underestimated Brazil and the US team looked lost with few combinations, and a lot of basic errors, in addition to tactical errors such as when they went for a long range shot at the posts in the last 10 minutes, and missed, instead of drilling to ball into the corner to pin Brazil on their line.

On the other hand credit also has to be given to Brazil. Since the end of the arrangement with Cantrbury in 2014 .. Ambrosio and the Argie CEO of Brazil Rugby have basically replicated the Argentine development strategy.

They have set up High Performance and Talent Identification centres in every region of Brazil .. and had 100 players across the country in training as part of the larger squad for the ARC.

When I was playing against Brazil until 4 years ago you could guarantee that the majority of players would come 3 or 4 clubs, the majority from Sao Jose de Campos, with a few from Spac, Niterioi and Bandeirantes thrown in.

The final squad for the ARC had players from 18 different clubs! And also included Aussie David Harvey (who played the first two games for Brazil), 3 Argentinians and two Frenchman with Brazillian roots.

The other change in Brazil is moneywise .. in 2011 the budget for all Brazils rep rugby teams was 300 000 Aussie dollars .. in 2015 the same budget is 6.5 million Aussie dollars .. and Brazil is regularly sending teams overseas as well as receiving inbound tours .. such as Germany last December.

Brazillian rugby is on the up … and they have huge resources .. it makes me a little sad as my adopted country Paraguay can never have those resources … and with only 20 rugby clubs in the country ,, and 1500 players .. we have until now been able to beat Brazil regularly .. and Brazil have more than 100 clubs and 11 000 adult players.

With the resources they have available I am sure that in time they will surpass Uruguay and Chile …

The tournament was actually pushed as a private initiative by Agustin Pichot and the Brazillian rugby President (a millionaire businessmen), who got the support of the UAR, Chile and Uruguay.

The tournament has the backing of World Rugby .. but discussions were first held around this time last year in Miami, with a meeting of the Presidents of the Unions involved. Bascially Pichot and the South American Union Presidents went to meet with the US and Canada Union bosses.

They met up, discussed the idea, and were basically told to go back to their home countries to see if they could get tv broadcast and sponsorship money to cover the costs, otherwise the US and Canada were not interested in it.

Interestingly the tournament doesnt for example replace the Sudamericano (the South American champiobship) which is still being held in April and May.

The reason for this is Paraguay,

Paraguay came 2nd in the Sudamericano in 2014 .. and beat Brazil in both the 2014 and 2015 Sudmaericanos … if it was going to replace the Sudamericano the Ameircas Rugby Championship would have to include Paraguay at the expense of Brazil (Paraguay are ranked 37th and Brazil were 42 until beating the US last weekend).

The Argentina XV games are also a little strange .. they are full cap games .. for both the players playing for Argentina XV and players playing for the opposing team .. but … the Argentina XV games do not count for World Rugby rankings points .. not sure how they decided that .. obviously it is a 3rd string Argie team with the Jaguares and all European pro Argentinian players not involved .. but I dont know why they are still awarding caps.

The tournament is self funding, based on sponsorhship and broadcast rights from ESPN Argentina, ESPN Brazil, and ESPN USA and Canada, ESPN Argentina basically cover rugby and broadcast Argentinian club, region and international rugby in the Southern Cone (Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Chile). The involvement of Chile and Uruguay didnt really add anything to the broadcast rights as Argie rugby is already shown the Argentinian ESPN broadcast in those countries. That is why Brazil was key as getting rugby on ESPN Brazil could attract additional broadcast revenue.

The Brazillian scrum dominance was a surprise … especially as it continued after Eric Fry, who has a pro contract with Newcastle, came on. Brazil have improved leaps and bounds in the scrum .. I played against Brazil regularly until 4 years ago and their scrum was the weakest point for thier game.

Through Talent Identification and Elite Develiopment programs they Brazil have really developed their scrum in the last year and a half, to the point where they can dominate Chile in the scrum and compete with Uruguay.

Good on them.

I live in, and have played rugby for Paraguay. The fact we were left out of the Americas 6 Nations is a sore point here, as Brazil (World Ranking 42) were included instead of us (World Ranking 37) and we have beaten Brazil the past 2 Sudamericano Rugby Championships in a row.

The reality is though that Brazil had to be included for economic reasons .. broadcast rights from ESPN Brazil allow the tournament to take place … and Paraguay simply doesnt have the money to send teams on overseas tours, or to pay players to participate in a 6 week tournament (10 weeks if you include the Sudamericano which is in April-May).

Espn Argentina and ESPN North America are showing all Argentina and US and Canada home games, and ESPN Brazil the Brazil home games as well as some Uruguay games such as Uy Brazil. The lower profile games such as Brazil Chile were only shown on poor quality streaming, providing no funds from Cable broadcasters.

The president of the Brazillian Rugby Union is a millionaire, and has managed to increase the budget for the Tupis (the Brazillian rep sides) from the equivalent of just 300 000 Aussie dollars in 2011 to 6.5 million Aussie dollars in 2015.

Its good that South American rugby now has this tournament .. but a little unfair that the participants came down to money rather than sporting merit.

Brazil have actually had the best womens 7s team in South America since women 7s has had a South American championship in 2004.

They won every single championship except for last year, when they didnt compete, as the championship doubled up as the Olympic qualifier and they already had a place as host.

2nd place is usually between Colombia and Argentina, with Colombia winning last year. For some reason Uruguay and Chile have remained fairly week in Women´s sevens, despite their mens teams usually being 2nd or 3rd behind Argentina.

The Brazillian mens team have also done better in 7s than 15s (having beaten both Argentina and Uruguay in 7s, whom they have never beaten in XVs). This is due in part to the reason you say … they are a bit like Japan, they have small skilled very fast players, but traditionally have lacked bigger players for the forwards ,, especially props and second rowers.

They have been adressing this in recent years though with Argentina Style PLAR centres (basically Talent Identinfication and Elite Players Development centres) and their pack is now beefing up.

The key to the Americas Rugby Championship being held was the support of Brazillian pay tv …

Brazil nearly beat Chile in the first round, they were hammering the Chilean line in the last minutes of the game, and looked set to score a try until a knock on. They were also beating Uruguay until a 76th minute Uruguayan try.

Ex Gordon, Manly and West Harbour player David Harvey was the Brazillian fly half in both games. They also have a few Argentinian and French players with Brazillian links.

Brazil was included in the ARC, at the expense of Paraguay, who until last weekend were situated 5 places above Brazil 37th in the World Rugby Rankings, while Brazil sat in 42 .. having lost to Paraguay the last two years. Brazil have now moved up to 38th.

Obviously this decision was controversial where I live, in Paraguay, as Brazil were included on non sporting merits, and we beat them in the Sudamericano championships in both 2015 and 2015.

The point was that ESPN iin the US and Canada agreed to televise home games in North America, and ESPN Argentina (which covers rugby and also shares its rugby coverage with Uruguay and Chile) agreed to televise matches involving Argentina.

Uruguay, Paraguay, and Chile are much smaller countries with smaller pay tv services … however bringing in Brazil saw ESPN Brazil agree to televise Brazil home games … with ESPN Brazils huge tv audience bringing in extra tv rights money which basically paid for the tournament to take place.

Not sure where your information comes from, but the only Kiwi involvement in Brazillian rugby was a coaching arrangement with Cantebury for two years years, where various Canterbury coaches were rotated to came and coach in Brazil for a 3 or 6 month spells, and Tabai Matson was the Brazillian national coach.

The arrangement was meant to be for 5 years, but it was terminated after Brasil lost to Paraguay for the first time in 10 years in 2014.

Brasil now have an Argentinian coach, Argentinian CEO of Brazillian Rugby, and develiopment arrangements with the Argentine UAR and World Rugby.

As they are holding the Olympics Brazil have automatic places in both the Mens and Womens 7s … their Womens 7s teams is the best on the continent anyway .. but their Mens team is usually 4th behind Argenina, Uruguay and Chile. The Olympic places have unlocked governement funding for rugby.

The CBRU (Brazillian Rugby Union) has also been very successful in gaining sponsorship and commercial support for rugby, thanks in large part to the President of the CBRU who is a millionaire himself.

In 2011 the funding for the Tupis (Mens and Womens 7s and mens XVs) was 900 000 reales, or around 300 000 Australian dollars.

In 2015 the funding for the Tupis es 18 000 000 reales, or around 6.5 million Australian dollars … a 22 fold increase, which has allowed every Brazillian state to have high performance centres.

This change has been reflected in the make up of the national team .. in 2011 almost the entire Brazillian team was from one club Sao Jose de Campos, with a few other players thrown in … today the squad for the Americas Rugby Championship comes from 18 different clubs.

Regarding the penalty … by the letter of the law it was a clear penalty ..

“11.7 OFFSIDE AFTER A KNOCK-ON
When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is
liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.
Sanction: Penalty kick”

That definately happened … Ball was knocked on by Hardie, it hit Strauss on the shoulder then brushed Phipps chest /shoulder before again hitting Strauss and bouncing forward 5 metres to be caught by the Scottish prop (despite being in an offside position in front of the player who knocked it on) who intentionally played the ball despite being offside, and therefore prevented Australia from playing it and gaining an advantage. From that perspective, a clear penalty as rule 11.7 says in red. The ball hit Strauss and Phipps in a split second, but neither of them intentionally played the ball (i,e. with hands, arms or feet).

So did it matter that the ball touched Phipps?

“11.3 BEING PUT ONSIDE BY OPPONENTS
In general play, there are three ways by which an offside player can be put onside by an
action of the opposing team. These three ways do not apply to a player who is offside under
the 10-Metre Law.
(a) Runs 5 metres with ball. When an opponent carrying the ball runs 5 metres, the offside
player is put onside.
(b) Kicks or passes. When an opponent kicks or passes the ball, the offside player is put
onside.
(c) Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not
catch it, the offside player is put onside.”

Did any of those things happen after the Scottish player knocked on the ball … No, the ball seemed to touch Phipps on the shoulder (and another Scottish player) but in neither case was it intentional, and after this the offside Scottish prop grabbed the ball in an offside position. The 11.7 penalty still applies.

According to the law the penalty was correct.

What about the TMO? The TMO could not be used anyway, as it was not the act of scoring a try, an action in the leadup to a try, a kick at goal, or an act of foul play. It wasnt an act of foul play (which are covered under Law 10) it was a technical infingement (hence being covered under Law 11, not Law 10, and not meriting a yellow card).

Anyway, even if the TMO was called in, he would have seen exactly the same as outlined above, a Scottish knock on, followed by two players accidentally touching the ball, followed by an offside Scottish player playing the ball intentionally.

Sanction, Penalty Kick.

Would be good if all the whingers (and tv commentators who started this kerfuffle saying it wasnt a penalty) read the laws of the game … by the letter of the law it was a clear penalty .

“11.7 OFFSIDE AFTER A KNOCK-ON
When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is
liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.
Sanction: Penalty kick”

That definately happened … Ball was knocked on by Hardie, it hit Strauss on the shoulder then brushed Phipps chest /shoulder before again hitting Strauss and bouncing forward 5 metres to be caught by the Scottish prop (despite being in an offside position in front of the player who knocked it on) who intentionally played the ball despite being offside, and therefore prevented Australia from playing it and gaining an advantage. From that perspective, a clear penalty as rule 11.7 says in red.

So did it matter that the ball touched Phipps?

“11.3 BEING PUT ONSIDE BY OPPONENTS
In general play, there are three ways by which an offside player can be put onside by an
action of the opposing team. These three ways do not apply to a player who is offside under
the 10-Metre Law.
(a) Runs 5 metres with ball. When an opponent carrying the ball runs 5 metres, the offside
player is put onside.
(b) Kicks or passes. When an opponent kicks or passes the ball, the offside player is put
onside.
(c) Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not
catch it, the offside player is put onside.”

Did any of those things happen after the Scottish player knocked on the ball … No, the ball seemed to touch Phipps on the shoulder (and another Scottish player) but in neither case was it intentional, and after this the offside Scottish prop grabbed the abll in an offside position. The 11.7 penalty still applies.

According to the law the penalty was correct.

What about the TMO? The TMO could not be used anyway, as it was not the act of scoring a try, an action in the leadup to a try, a kick at goal, or an act of foul play. It wasnt an act of foul play (which are covered under Law 10) it was a technical infingement (hence being covered under Law 11, not Law 10, and not meriting a yellow card).

Anyway, even if the TMO was called in, he would have seen exactly the same as outlined above, a Scottish knock on, followed by two players accidentally touching the ball, followed by an offside Scottish player playing the ball intentionally.

Sanction, Penalty Kick.

Demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the Aussie front row there … maybe thats why you keep harping on about this.

Foley retired in 2001 … Cannon and Paul were the Wallaby hookers at the 2003 RWC.

Its not a pointless comparison … 2003 was a rugby world cup, same number of pool games as this year, with 30 players in a squad .. we took 2 hookers and 4 props .. this year we can take 31 players and we are taking 2 hookers and 5 props.

Regarding the “level” of the hookers, Each franchise had 3 contracted hookers at the time. Many people argue that the Aussie franchises were “stronger” at the time as talent was distributed across less teams, and competition within teams was stronger for starting spots, NSW for example had a policy of rotating Cannon and Freir for starting spots. the Brumbies did the same at times with Paul and Beaumont.

Adam Freier was seen as a very good prospect and could have easily been chosen as a 3rd hooker in the squad (both he and hardman made their debut in Wallaby 2002) but Eddie Jones chose against this for the 2003 RWC. Teams played the same number of games as at RWC 2015, replacment rules were similar (72 hours notice whereas in 2015 it is 48), and Australia had no problem with their hookers getting injured.

If I remember correcyl Matt Dunning, a prop, trained as an emergency hooker in addition to his normal prop role.

Out the 9 super contracted hookers Cannon, Paul, Freier and Hardman had all already played for the Wallabies, 3 others, Moore, Edmonds and Mcisaac went on to play for the Wallabies in later years.

The contracted Super Rugby hooker in 2003 were the following:

Reds
Sean Hardman (Wallabies debut 2002)
Stephen Moore (Wallabies debut 2005)
Tai Mcisaac (Wallabies debut 2006)

Waratahs
Brendan Cannon (Wallabies debut 2001)
Huia Edmonds (Wallabies debut 2010)
Adam Freier (Wallabies debut 2002)

Brumbies
Jeremy Paul (Wallabies debut 1998)
Digby Beaumont
Damian Flynn

The point is we have gone to a world cup with 2 hookers before … this time we have 2 hookers and an extra prop .. the pecking order in hookers seems sorted, with Moore first en TPN the reserve, regarding props we are still switching and changing …. to find the best combination .. that is probably why Cheika and Ledesma chose 5 props and 2 hookers…. to allow this to continue, and also on the baiss of both England and Wales being strong scrummaging teams.

Selecting two complete teams decision also makes sense when you consider the short turnaround between the Uruguay and Fiji games .. and the possibility that the pool could come down to points for and against, in particular how many you can rack up against Uruguay and Fiji. So you play two distinct teams to maximise your score, and avoid player tiredness and or injury due to having games so close together.

For crying out loud, not sure why there is STILL such a scandal. For what its worth, below I have outlined Aussie hooker/prop mixes in all RWCs.

You can see we only took 2 hookers In 1987, 1991 and 1995, but it is worth noting that squads consisted of only 26 players, obviously in this case you would never take more than 2 hookers in that era.

Since 1999 squads have been 30 or 31 players, in the 2003 RWC (like now) we took only two hookers and the world didnt end and we didnt have to forfeit any games (like some people have suggested).

Ledesma is no chump when it comes to scrums ..you can see the impact he has had at both the Waratahs and Wallabbies, he played 4 RWCs and was the guy who pushed Fede Mendoza out of the Pumas, and who kept John Smit (who at the time he was signed for Clermont was a RWC winning captain) out of the Clermont starting line up, so much so that Smit quit the club.

2015 – Aust 2 hookers and 5 props
2011 – Aust 3 hookers and 4 props
2007 – Aust 3 hookers and 4 props

2003 – Aust 2 hookers and 4 props * RWC Finalists
1999 – Aust 3 hooker and 4 props * RWC Winners
1995 – Aust 2 hookers, 4 props
1991 – Aust 2 hookers, 4 props * RWC Winners
1987 – Aust 2 hookers, 4 props

In 2003 Australia only took 2 hookers to the world cup and somehow, despite this ghastly horrendous, doomsday, suicidal, crime against humanity, we managed to make the final.

in 1999 Australia took 3 hookers to the world cup, and when Phil Kearns was injured and ruled out of the tournament, Rod Macqueen decided to replace him with an extra prop, instead of bringing in another hooker.

“The Australian camp have also announced today that prop Glenn Panoho has been drafted into their World Cup squad as replacement for injured hooker Phil Kearns.”
Calm down people … the world isnt going to end and the people in charge of the Wallabies do have an idea about RWCs and forward play.

Cheika has decided to take an extra prop … in the past Australia has taken 3 hookers and 4 props to RWCs .. this time Cheika has decided to take 2 hookers and 5 props, in other words extra prop sacraficing a reserve reserve hooker.

It is worth bearing in mind that even in 2011, with Stephen Moore having backspasms ruling him out in the warm up before a game, Australia´s reserve reserve hooker, Fainga, only got on the pitch for a half against the USA.

Not at all .. I used to be a hooker at schoolboy level, moved to prop in adult rugby, and when required, could throw in the ball … at training, in games, even played in a team where I threw in the ball but played as prop in the scrum, and our hooker in the scrum lifted.

Like being able to kick conversions o drop goals, throwing in the ball is not a skill you lose quickly.

Youd be surprised .. I used to be a hooker in under 18s, changed to prop for the rest of my career, and occasionally, when needed, threw in the ball. Its not a skill you lose quickly with “muscle memory” for anyone who has played a bit of hooker at any age.

In quite a few teams I played prop in the scrum but threw the ball in at the lineout … especially if our starting hooker left the field.

Apart from props or other front rowers, a lot of players have ball throwing ability from 7s these days, backrowers especially.

People seem to be quite robotic about rugby these days, the hooker has to throw in the ball, the flyhalf has to kick etc, but it actually is not always like that … if you have a player who is better at a certain skill … a good coach will select him to to that.

Argentina took two hookers in 2007 as Ledesma said, himself and Basualdo, .. after the pool stages games are a week apart, and the dangers of someone getting injured in the 48 hours before a game are minimal, when you dont do heavy training in the 48 hours before a test (in this world cup the rule is 48 notification of a replacement not 72),

“Argentina call up replacement
Monday 15 October 2007

rgentina call up replacement
Injured: Mario Ledesma Arocena has all but ruled himself out of the bronze final
PARIS, 15 October – Eusebio Guinazu has been called up to replace injured Argentina hooker Mario Ledesma Arocena, pending RWCL confirmation.

Ledesma Arocena suffered an adductor injury in the semi-final defeat by South Africa on Sunday and has all but ruled himself out of Friday’s bronze medal final against France.

Guinazu was part of coach Marcelo Loffreda’s squad in the lead-up to the tournament. The 114kg, 1.81m Agen prop has played 12 Tests for the Pumas and scored one try since his debut against Paraguay in 2003.

He was expected to rejoin his team-mates on Monday night.”

Exactly … the Wallabies scrum has improved enormously under Ledesma, people are just looking for a reason to have a whinge ..

There were even naysayers claiming Australia was at risk of having to forfeit a game or only play with 7 reserves instead of 8 if they didnt take an extra hooker.

Too many people trying to have their 2 cents worth about the front row when they never played there and have no idea.

Spiro jumped the gun a bit with his artcle .. Ledesma later revealed more.

The Wallabies scrum guru was then asked if Sio was the player who would be used as Moore and Polota-Nau’s cover and answered: “That’s a possibility.”

When asked if Sio was picked for the role because he had some experience as a hooker as a schoolboy, Ledesma answered: “Yeah … it wasn’t too difficult [to work out], hey?”

hahahaha .. come on …

“If Sio is your bench hooker you’re faced with running your hooker for the whole 80 minutes” shock! Horror! A hooker playing the entire 80 mintues!!!!

its not obligatory to replace your hooker in the last 20 minutes … and there are plenty of hookers who play the entire game.

If a Wallaby hooker was injured, then the starting hooker would probably remain on the field until the end of the game as long as they were not injured.

Hi Tahpan, yep, a lot of people panicking and making a mountain out of a mole hill … the situation is even less likely when you consider the injury period has now been reduced for this world cup.

It was 72 hours in the last RWC, in this world cup it is 48 hours … i.e. if you notify RWC organisation of a permanent replacement that person cannot play until 48 hours after the notification.

Ledesma stated

“If we have an injury that lasts only one week, we’ll make the prop play.

If it lasts longer, we just have to get the other hooker [James Hanson from the train-on squad] who has been training with us every day.”

Glad that someone with Ledesma´s stature in the game has put to bed all of the idiotic remarks by people claiming that Cheika´s selections were risking Aussie world cup ambitions and could result in Australia having to forfeit a game as a result of an injury to a hooker.

That suggestion was simply made by people with no understanding of the front row, or with some agenda to try and make an issue which didnt exist.

As an add on to the article above Ledesma later revealed on Planet Rugby and Rugby Heaven that Scott Sio is the one doing some training as fill in hooker.

As has been mentioned Sio played Aussie schools at hooker and trianed as hooker when he started at the Brumbies.

Here are the extra tit bits on the issue by Ledesma not included above …

“When asked who the back-up hooker is, he added: “That’s a surprise.”

But when the issue was raised again later, Ledesma replied: “If we have an injury that lasts only one week, we’ll make the prop play.

“If it lasts longer, we just have to get the other hooker [James Hanson from the train-on squad] who has been training with us every day.”

The Wallabies scrum guru was then asked if Sio was the player who would be used as Moore and Polota-Nau’s cover and answered: “That’s a possibility.”

When asked if Sio was picked for the role because he had some experience as a hooker as a schoolboy, Ledesma answered: “Yeah … it wasn’t too difficult [to work out], hey?”

Ledesma said it wouldn’t be necessary “to convince” Rugby World Cup officials that Sio would be equipped to play as a hooker.

“When you go into a game you have to say who is playing tight or loose [head prop] – or if they are playing both,” he explained when questioned about official formalities in team selection.

“If we don’t put it there, they cannot play on either side; but if you put it there, nobody is asking you, ‘Is this guy able to play both sides?’ [With] the hooker, [it] is the same.

“I mean, he is a prop. It is not like we are playing a No. 9 as a hooker. That would be dangerous; but a prop as a hooker … there is no danger there.”

Ledesma said he was not giving Sio extra tips on the intricacies of playing hooker.

“No … we are trying to prioritise,” he added.

“He is working as a prop, and a little time here and there we will be working [on hooking]. But I’m real comfortable with ‘Taf’ and ‘Squeak’ [Moore] and if they get a serious injury, the third hooker will come.

“That is how a lot of teams have been doing it. I played four World Cups. We did every World Cup like that and nothing happened.””

Ive played prop in Aus, Europa and South America, and the roles are simiilar, although there are technical differences, hookers generally neeed to be more flexible than a prop to be able to hook the ball.

In terms of pushing in the scrum, the actual push is similar, however, depending on scrum tactics, the hooker usually needs to strike for the ball instead of push to do this he needs to have one foot on the ground and the other swinging across to strike. Some teams however opt for an 8 man shove, to simply push their scrum over the ball, or to have the hooker hook with the back of his foot, which means more pushing akin to a prop.

The hooker holds together the scrum and is also responsible for the timing, and usually for signalling to the scrum half when they want the ball put in.

It would be hard for a really big prop to pack in at hooker, as his two propos would find it hard to grasp around him, and his second rowers would be pushed apart a bit by his width, but for me a medium size prop like Scott Sio filling in at hooker will have no problem

Anyone can throw in … Ive played on teams where a back rower or the halfback has thrown in.

Ex Argie scrum half Nicolas Sanchez Miranda used to throw in at club and international level only a few years ago, and France maintained their wing or scrum halfs throwing in until the early 90s —

Its a bit like the flyhalf being responsible for kickoffs .. these days most teams give the role to their flyhalf, but if someone is better at the role, why not give it to them.

Not sure why you keep pushing this Red Kev .. you are simply wrong.

If a hooker did get injured in the 48 hours prior to a test, the reserve prop not originally picked for the matchday 23 would be included amongst the 3 front row replacements. This is allowed ..

The relevant rugby law (Law 3.5) simply states that in the matchday squad there must be three front row replacements, one nominated to cover each front row position, and that a nominated player must be “suitably trained and experienced” in the position nominated.

There is nothing about having to have played a prior test in that position.

Im sure that scrum training at hooker with an international team like the Wallabies covers “suitably trained and experienced”.

Regardless, Rule 3.5 (M) “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.”

So it is up to individual teams do decide who is a suitable front row replacement. In the case of this Wallabies squad, I assume that Scott Sio (who played hooker at under 20s level) and Toby Smith (uncapped) will have been doing scrum training as replacement hookers in a worst case scenario.

If one Wallaby hooker is injured within the 48 hours before a match (and cant be replaced), and the other hooker, starting is then injured, a prop, nominated as hooker, will have to come on at hooker. If that causes problems in the scrum, and the referee thinks it is the replacements hooker´s fault, the referee can penalise the player and eventually give him a yellow card in the case of repeated infringements.

If the replacement hooker (who in the wallabies case is someone who is normally a prop) is given a yellow card or otherwise is injured scrums would then go to uncontested (if the Wallabies captain said they had no other player that could play hooker).

If all 3 front row replacements have come on, one of them is forced to leave the field, and none of the starting front rowers are able to come back on, the Wallabies will have to play one man down.