The UAFC

Dudley Philips was the ref.....self-explanatory

Live on Sky Sports 3. Home win for the

First shot of the Munster bench v Embra and we see Zebo taking a selfie lol

Munster looking rather toothless so far.

Snipe Watson wrote:Munster looking rather toothless so far.

Apart from their scrum. Enough of those within 10 metres of the Edinburgh line and it'll still be a bonus point win. Apart from that, they have offered nothing.

Scrumming Edinburgh off the pitch.

Embra medical team have realised that their tight head, who was tactically subbed, is now actually injured. Uncontested scrums. Bit of gamesmanship.

Deraless wrote:Embra medical team have realised that their tight head, who was tactically subbed, is now actually injured. Uncontested scrums. Bit of gamesmanship.

Can somebody explain to me what the feck Whitehouse was talking about insisting that Edinburgh brought on a tight head?

Is this written down somewhere?

Law 3.6.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.

Deraless wrote:Law 3.6.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.

tbh, I think that the law should be amended. If you have to go to uncontested scrums because you don't have a man on the bench or put a subbed player fit for the position back on, you can't then put a replacement on.

Would help stop the team getting pulverised from essentially cheating their way out of a hole.

Been going on for a while that debate. Leicester always seem to suffer because of it.

http://m.leicestermercury.co.uk/tigers- ... story.html

Think they had another episode where Saints did it last year.

You can see the reasoning, for safety purposes, but it does seem to punish the dominant team and neagate their advantage. I have to say yesterday with Munster I was thinking that if they kept winning scrum penalties when Edinburgh were already a man down it could go uncontested for a while. Maybe they needed to play smarter?

Edinburgh definitely chanced their arm since an earlier tactical sub suddenly became injured on the bench lol. It was an obvious if unsporting thing to do.

What could you do instead?.You could award a free-kick instead of a scrum but then defences could spread and it maybe wouldn't be such an advantage. A full penalty seems harsh, especially if there are genuine injuries.

What else could be done?

Munter, play smart? Lol

Deraless wrote:Been going on for a while that debate. Leicester always seem to suffer because of it.

http://m.leicestermercury.co.uk/tigers- ... story.html

Think they had another episode where Saints did it last year.

You can see the reasoning, for safety purposes, but it does seem to punish the dominant team and neagate their advantage. I have to say yesterday with Munster I was thinking that if they kept winning scrum penalties when Edinburgh were already a man down it could go uncontested for a while. Maybe they needed to play smarter?

Edinburgh definitely chanced their arm since an earlier tactical sub suddenly became injured on the bench lol. It was an obvious if unsporting thing to do.

What could you do instead?.You could award a free-kick instead of a scrum but then defences could spread and it maybe wouldn't be such an advantage. A full penalty seems harsh, especially if there are genuine injuries.

What else could be done?

It will require some outside the box thinking from WR. If an uncontested situation comes about as a result of a sin binning, you could have a more punitive punishment such as a free kick that can be kicked to touch while retaining the throw. Or an option for a lineout directly adjacent to the point of the scrum.

Is there not something about if you have to go uncontested then you go down to 14 men or was that just a trial ?

Rooster wrote:Is there not something about if you have to go uncontested then you go down to 14 men or was that just a trial ?

That was a trial iirc. I'm completely lost as to what rules/interpretations/directives/trials are currently being applied.

I think the U19 game is even more complicated. They have specialist locks. I mean, come off it! I've heard 2nd row called many things, but specialised, it is not!