Interchange for the front row?

[Scoey]

Hey Gaggers,
I've noticed a fair bit recently in the S15 a phenomenon whereby during the match (sometimes even in the first half) a prop will go down injured and be replaced. Then say 50 mins in the hooker will be subbed for the reserve hooker as you do. And then with maybe 20 to go, the other prop will go down injured and the original starting prop will come back on. Not sure on the rules with replacing front rowers but I think this is legal and is done to avoid uncontested scrums.

This seems to happen a lot which makes it look like a deliberate tactic. ie faking injuries to keep the front row fresh.

This incidence, added to the rule they are trialing in the Junior World Champs (8 reserves so you have a whole reserve front row) got me thinking. Would the game of Rugby be improved if you could rotate your front rowers (limited interchange) during the game? Would a "fresher" front row lead to more stable scrums, particularly at the pointy end of a game? If the teams are doing this anyway, due to faking injuries etc as discussed above, should we just legalise it and get on with it?

Thoughts?

 

[Scotty]

Do we also legalise double subbing hookers as well?

Maybe we could allow say 3 subs across all front row positions and if there are injuries past this it has to go uncontested and you can not resub a front rower on (eg might have the reserve half back playing at hooker)

 

[Scoey]

Yep whatever rule they came up with would apply to the whole front row I would imagine. I think it would be good for the game if it resulted in less scrum resets. But you have to ask, how many scrum resets are due to tired front rowers? Maybe not that many?

 

[Jets]

An injured player can not return to the field, unless in the blood bin. You can replace a front row player and use him later in the game if another front rower is injured. The idea of this is to have contested scrums for the entire match.
In Brisbane club rugby at the moment if you start a match with contestable scrums and a front rower is injured, if there are no suitable replacements you have to play out the match with 14 players. It is resulting in some teams calling uncontested scrums from the start of the match so this doesn't happen.

 

[qwerty51]

an extra prop is hardly a new rule being trialled, the comps in the NH all have 23 man match day squads. It's only a matter of time before it's used in Super Rugby

 

[Viking]

Add in 2 "Reserve Players": A Hooker and a Front Rower. These players are the same as subs but can ONLY be subed for injuries.

I dont like the idea of too many Subs. I like the idea of players who work hard on there fitness having an advantage in the last 20minutes to the less fitter players. This advantage will drastically be reduced with too many Subs. Id honestly prefer to have NO SUBS unless there is an injury. Only problem with that is like u mentioned.. fake injuries.

 

[chasmac]

In terms of scrum capacity the wallabies currently only have Robinson (loose head ) Palmer (tight head ) and Kepu (tight head ) at a standard where they can consistently compete against the best. Running subs on for them willy nilly weakens our chance of having a dominant scrum. It seems to be a big step down (in scrum capacity) to Slipper, Alexander Maafu et al.

 

[Lee Grant]

an extra prop is hardly a new rule being trialled, the comps in the NH all have 23 man match day squads. It's only a matter of time before it's used in Super Rugby

Exactly - it will eventually become law.

I've written about the 23 man teams in Europe for the last 2-3 years and wrote a couple of days ago about how Super teams do some skulduggery to spread the work load of props and hookers. I gave an old example of how Kepu would go off as a tactical substitution before oranges for the Tahs (it couldn't be an injury replacement else he couldn't come back on the field), then he would return when Baxter got a well-timed cramp with 15-20 minutes to go.

I've even seen teams with hookers who could prop, help spread the front row load even more with this feigning strategy. Even if the hookers are just hookers you see the 1st hooker coming back as a planned move, especially if they are close together in ability.

The trial of having two sets of front rows in a 23 is the right way to overcome this feigning nonsense.

Super Rugby is the only major rugby tournament that doesn't use the 23rd man. Sometimes you see the whole front row being replaced with a reserve front row in the Top14 at the same time. The scrum is a huge weapon in the Top14 and all the more so because they can field two specialist LHPs and 2 specialist THPs in 80 minutes.

And uncontested scrums have disappeared.

chasmac

You are right in indicating that this change will disadvantage Oz sides in Super and test rugby because of our small pool of good props. But it's the right thing to do.
.

 

[Manuel]

I am not a big fan of the 23-man squads. I think fitness has to count for something, and when sides use a 6-2 split, then you end the game having replaced 75% of your forward pack... I'd just go for 22 players with free replacements on the front row, to make it transparent. However, an entire frontrow in the bench seems to be an unavoidable change to come.

Two TH and two LH in a matchday squad is likely to give players such as Wyatt Crocket and Jamie Mackintosh some test rugby gametime, while probably limiting the international career of players as Ben Franks, who are basically there on polyfunctionality.

Another effect, that no-one was expecting, is financial. Props were already hard to find, and now they have become the highest earners of european rugby, so the 23 man squads are imposing considerable financial pressure on the clubs. I don't know how that will go with the centralized contracts, but it will be hard (or expensive) to stop southern props going north for the big money.

 

[Dan54]

An injured player can not return to the field, unless in the blood bin. You can replace a front row player and use him later in the game if another front rower is injured. The idea of this is to have contested scrums for the entire match.
In Brisbane club rugby at the moment if you start a match with contestable scrums and a front rower is injured, if there are no suitable replacements you have to play out the match with 14 players. It is resulting in some teams calling uncontested scrums from the start of the match so this doesn't happen.

It is one of my real bugbears in Brisbane rugby Jets, teams calling non contesting scrums before game, although because club I connected with has always had good scrum teams used to just go uncontested during game. I think the idea of playing 1 man short is right, but believe to solve problem a team that starts game without scrum should forfeit a couple of points.

 

[Blue]

Props that can really scrum both sides are becoming scarce as hen's teeth and I mean guys who can really do it that well that they are starting candidates in either position. The craft has just become too specialist. As a result we sometimes see scrums going to shit once the reserve prop comes on to prop on what is his wrong side. It results in more reset scrums, often questionable penalties and risk of injury.

Who is there? Franks, Afoa, Slipper at a push, Alexander when one looks the other way, CJ (used to be good at it years ago). Some of the French props can (the Clermont fella who was their bench prop in the RWC forget his name now) and we are lead to believe that Stevens for the Poms can but he is so shite anyway that it's anyone's guess which is his best side. Do props have a best side? I digress. Oh and Vickery was able to.

Manuel
I can't see how you say the effect is financial. Any professional team has 4 or 5 props in their main squad. They are not required to contract more fatties.

I'm all for it. The scrum is a lottery. The more we can do to keep the farquin thing off the ground the better.

 

[Scotty]

Stevens used to be a lot better. Not sure what happened to him, but I suspect if he was playing super rugby he would rate pretty highly.

Kepu can also do both sides - arguably better than Alexander can.

Rare as hen's teeth? Yes, but I don't really ever recall it being any other way.

 

[What2040]

Those props that can play both sides are invaluable to the team. Those that can play 80 minutes are also invaluable. Those that can do both are 2 dimensional and are very rare and should be sought out by any franchise. Its a bit like getting 2 for the price of 1. - In Aussie, Holmes, Slipper, Kepu and Alexander all have the ability to play 80 on both sides, some better than others. Robinson, Pek Cowan, Ben Daley, Dan Palmer, Laurie Weekes, Rodzilla are all 1 dimensional and again some are much better than others.

 

[Moses]

Even if the hookers are just hookers you see the 1st hooker coming back as a planned move, especially if they are close together in ability.

TPN has been feigning footballers migraine for years to get around the substitution laws!

 

[suckerforred]

From an injury prespective I like the idea of having an entire front row on the bench. The big thing is protecting players if they come off with a niggle. It needs to be enforced however that they do not go back on.

But what happens if both your THP's get injured in the game? Or both your hookers, or both the LHP's? Uncontested scrums will happen, but hopefully not as much. Unless the Reds 10 curse is transfered to a position in the front row. Idealally the two props on the bench will be one who can (even at a pinch) scrum both sides and the other to cover his weaker side. This will mean the players like Slipper, Franks & Afoa will become specialist bench props until they confirm which side of the pack they can work the best. Might even mean that the younger props get a gig more often on the bench.

Either way I think this is a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation. But player safety needs to trump everything else and hence we need to live with having a replacement row on the bench and develop strategies to play with it.

 

[Blue]

Yes forgot about Kepu.

An please can we not call it interchange. It's called substitution.

Scotty maybe I talk from an SA perspective we seemed to have a lot more guys who were able to play both sides in the past but not any more.

 

[Tez T]

It is one of my real bugbears in Brisbane rugby Jets, teams calling non contesting scrums before game, although because club I connected with has always had good scrum teams used to just go uncontested during game. I think the idea of playing 1 man short is right, but believe to solve problem a team that starts game without scrum should forfeit a couple of points.

Here is my take on it:
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/scrum-talk.4363/page-19#post-373400

 

[en_force_er]

I think most front rowers would be able to safely play both sides of the scrum at most levels (bar test and maybe super rugby), after all they need to understand what the other sides does so they can counter it. That being said being able to play safely and well are very different things.