Pindan Premier Round 8

[egs on toast]

Just had a look at the team lists for Sun and how can someone I said a few weeks back was chasing and actually got an overseas contract and left the country be named in the Cott side.Even if the team lists are lies at least they gave Rugby Wa a list,not like your usual suspects.I see we've got the best ref going round town on Sun so no excuses, this will see whether we're the real deal or not.Bring your A game Cott cos it's gonna be a fucken bloodbath

??

[Sprogrugby]

Whittaker the force hooker was taken off at half time.They then took a prop due to injury and Whittaker went back on.Whittaker then speared one of our players head first and got a red card.At this stage we were 15 metres from the cott line and elected to take a scrum because we had been doing them up in that area ,they had a player trying to run on and the touch judge had to tell him to wait.When the player trying to get on eventually got on he subbed Richard Cooper Cott prop who walked off uninjured and admitted afterwards he had been dragged.They then went to uncontested scrums to nullify our advantage.,

Westies Man
As you describe it I'm not convinced Cott were able to do what they did...regardless of the gamesmanship issue.
In a squad of 22, you are required to have 5 front row, so that in the first instance of a hooker and prop being replaced (meaning injured, not substituted - meaning tactical). This naturally means that of the 2 front row on the bench, 1 must be prop and 1 must be hooker.
As you describe it, BW went off as substitution (not replacement - he came back on) - therefore a hooker went on, leaving the original bench prop still on the bench. A prop got injured and BW went back on as a prop...under law they're still complying i.e. first prop has got injured and so they been able to replace him. However, they have done so with a hooker, leaving an unused substitute prop on the bench. While I'm sure they'd argue that they only have to be able to replace 1 injured prop, and they've done so (albeit with a hooker), this leaves an unused substitute prop on the bench ? I'd suggest that law does not intend that to happen in the way it is written i.e. 5 front row...
That will be an interesting question for Rugby WA

[RumourMonger]

They'll get away with it, mark my word.

Cott are well connected at Rugby WA. Some would argue they are one and the same!

[wingman]

There must be five players who can play in the front row to ensure
that on the first occasion that a replacement hooker is required, and on
the first occasion that a replacement prop forward is required, the team
can continue to play safely with contested scrums.
Should a team not be able to meet this obligation for any reason during
a game, than at the point in the match when the front row replacement is
required, this team must play with one player fewer than would
otherwise be allowed.
Should a team not have three suitably trained front row players to
commence a game with contested scrums, this team must play with one
fewer than would otherwise be allowed.
If, subsequently, a qualified front rower becomes available (or returns
from either blood bin or temporary suspension) so that scrums can be
contested then that player will be allowed onto the field and the team
may return to the appropriate complement of players.
If neither team has suitably trained front row players to start a game with
contested scrums, the above arrangements do not apply to the game,
even if qualified front rowers subsequently become available.

Reading this Cott should have played with 13

[Piston]

There must be five players who can play in the front row to ensure
that on the first occasion that a replacement hooker is required, and on
the first occasion that a replacement prop forward is required, the team
can continue to play safely with contested scrums.
Should a team not be able to meet this obligation for any reason during
a game, than at the point in the match when the front row replacement is
required, this team must play with one player fewer than would
otherwise be allowed.
Should a team not have three suitably trained front row players to
commence a game with contested scrums, this team must play with one
fewer than would otherwise be allowed.
If, subsequently, a qualified front rower becomes available (or returns
from either blood bin or temporary suspension) so that scrums can be
contested then that player will be allowed onto the field and the team
may return to the appropriate complement of players.
If neither team has suitably trained front row players to start a game with
contested scrums, the above arrangements do not apply to the game,
even if qualified front rowers subsequently become available.

Reading this Cott should have played with 13

I was at the game and the following happened. BW was substituted at halftime. At around the 60 min mark Cott no 3 (presumable injured) came off and BW went back on. 5min later BW had his usual brain fade and got RC. Cott then pulled off no 1 and replaced him with a hooker, the only front row player left on the bench. They therefore had one prop and one hooker on the field and 2 props off "injured" and one hooker RC. So they did comply according to the rules by having 5 front row players in their 22. Because they have complied with that they do not need to drop another player. They also can't use any of their 2nd grade, 3rd grade front rows as that will mean they go outside their match day 22.

The real issue is whether their no 1, that was replaced, was really injured. He certainly just walked off. The ref did stop the game to get clarity from Cott if that was the case and they con firmed that he was injured. Nothing more the ref can do.

Wests did dominate the scrums, but that was about it. They turned over the ball too many times. They must have lost their first 5 lineouts and had about 5 knock-ons in the first 10min. In total they must have lost their lineout about 8-10 times. Sam Christie has got a huge boot and kept putting it in the corners, only for Wests to loose the lineouts. That was the difference in the game.

[Buddha Handy]

We had the same situation in 4th grade on the weekend. Our prop got yellow carded and we queried with the ref if we could go uncontested. He said we would have to drop another player (down to 13) and so we miraculously found another prop

So how come a ref in 4th grade can get it right but not in prems?

[Piston]

We had the same situation in 4th grade on the weekend. Our prop got yellow carded and we queried with the ref if we could go uncontested. He said we would have to drop another player (down to 13) and so we miraculously found another prop

So how come a ref in 4th grade can get it right but not in prems?

BH the question is how many front row players did you had on the bench and have your team utilised them all before requesting to go uncontested. If the answer if 5 (3 starting and 2 on the bench) and you have used them all, then no you didn't had to drop a player. There's a difference between wanting to go uncontested and needing to go uncontested.

As I have said before Cott had 5 on the bench and complied by the rules. However the question is whether that player was injured, which looked not to be the case.
Posted via Mobile Device

[wingman]

yep fair enough then if the no.1 and 3 had a legitimate injuries then they complied . loophole exploited by Cott . be interested to see if RugbyWA ask for medical reporst on each player if wests do pursue this

[westies man]

.

The real issue is whether their no 1, that was replaced, was really injured. He certainly just walked off. The ref did stop the game to get clarity from Cott if that was the case and they con firmed that he was injured. Nothing more the ref can do.

[/QUOTE]
The player in question just walked off,no physio or anyone else came onto the field.He walked past me and I said to the touch judge what's that all about and he replied 'take It up with Rugby WA'..Again the ref got it wrong.Our asset the scrum was nullified and agree we played shit and part of the reason for that was Cott's defensive structures were top notch and didn't allow us to get going but rules are rules and we'll see what comes out of all this.Even if nothing comes out of all this club's need to be aware of this little ploy and insist on asking Cott who are their reserve front rowers and request their jersey numbers.Again I'm waiting for Rugby Fan to tell us what he know's.

[Yeahbaby7]

Kala v Soaks

Jacob Kohinga had a blinder for Kala at 13 breaking the line at will. Even the ref had a good game.

Ive watched this kid develop over the past 10 years throughout his junior days with Kala under Pete Simpkins. He is a talented kid but also a genuinely nice young man. Good to see him performing well in his first year of senior rugby after playing U16's last year.

[GIGS20]

The bit that is important is this Cott then pulled off no 1 and replaced him with a hooker, the only front row player left on the bench. They therefore had one prop and one hooker on the field and 2 props off "injured" and one hooker RC. Thanks Piston, Was this substitution due to injury or just replacing one front rower with another. I would think the latter is at odds with (at least the spirit of) the rules.

The way Westie describes it, it was a deliberate flaunting of the rules, Even Piston's account doesn't mention injury. Did the Ref check to see whether the second prop was injured? If not, why not? to replace a front rower who isn't injured and then call uncontested would indicate a lack of proper game management and therefore a good reason to make them drop a man.

Without being there, nobody can comment upon anything other than people's description of events. I wouldn't want to be on the judiciary for quids!

[RumourMonger]

By the time the judiciary rolls around Cott will have developed a story line that is impossible to dispute, ie we thought he had concussion, something that no referee would be in a position (or be qualified to) to diagnose on the spot.

A lot of rugby relies on the integrity of the participants, something that seems to be missing at one particular club.

As I said, they'll get away with it. Rugby WA and the Judiciary will stamp the file "No further Action".

[fulvio sammut]

Is it not a rule that a player diagnosed with concussion cannot play again until 2 weeks have elaped from the date of injury?

Interesting to see if the player fronts up next weekend.

[anon]

Is it not a rule that a player diagnosed with concussion cannot play again until 2 weeks have elaped from the date of injury?

Interesting to see if the player fronts up next weekend.

Suspected head injury. I heard it was a reoccurring shoulder injury. Who knows though lets just hope that Cott get knocked off by neddies. No one seems to like Cott
Posted via Mobile Device

[Hohepa]

he subbed Richard Cooper Cott prop who walked off uninjured and admitted afterwards he had been dragged.They then went to uncontested scrums to nullify our advantage.,

This is the pertinent point here