The UAFC

Snipe Watson wrote:

Cockatrice wrote:

Snipe Watson wrote:

Jackie Brown wrote:Disgusting by Lacey. TC has a neck injury and Lacey told him he couldn't leave.

None of the Ulster medics looked near Tom. He just wandered off

If not mistaken he stood on the touch line looking to come off and then if not mistaken he was involved in having to make the tackle on Bennett when he scored.

How did the ref know he was injured? Just looked as if he headed for touch. GG should have been on to get him off.

If I recall correctly Mueller asked Lacey at the line out for a replacement and Lacey called 'at the next scrum' then continued the play. Court looked in a bad way and went into the scrum injured.

Very probably wouldn't have made a material difference to the end result, but:

At our FNW non-try, we set a maul 5 metres out and began to advance. Two Glasgow players entered from the side - Lacey saw both, and put the hand out for penalty advantage. Eventually FNW crossed the line, but was adjudged not to have grounded the ball.

My question is: if the maul had the momentum to cross the line in the face of two illegal entries, should one or both of the illegal entries not have constituted reason for the award of a penalty try? And more generically in that situation, should one or both of the offending players not have been yellow-carded?

It seems that in the last 3 weeks we're getting lots of opportunities to inspect details of rugby law/find out that referees are tom kite, rather than actually winning.

Cockatrice wrote:

Snipe Watson wrote:

Cockatrice wrote:

Snipe Watson wrote:

Jackie Brown wrote:Disgusting by Lacey. TC has a neck injury and Lacey told him he couldn't leave.

None of the Ulster medics looked near Tom. He just wandered off

If not mistaken he stood on the touch line looking to come off and then if not mistaken he was involved in having to make the tackle on Bennett when he scored.

How did the ref know he was injured? Just looked as if he headed for touch. GG should have been on to get him off.

If I recall correctly Mueller asked Lacey at the line out for a replacement and Lacey called 'at the next scrum' then continued the play. Court looked in a bad way and went into the scrum injured.

But did he make it clear that Tom was injured and was to be substituted not just a replacement? Tom was about 100 yards away.

I thought lacey was saying that we couldn't take a prop off as we didn't have any props on the bench and we'd have to go to 14 men but maybe I just picked it up all wrong.

againstthehead wrote:I thought lacey was saying that we couldn't take a prop off as we didn't have any props on the bench and we'd have to go to 14 men but maybe I just picked it up all wrong.

Is that the rule?

I thought when you had no props left now you had to go uncontested but go down to 14 men since the 2 props on bench was introduced ?

Jackie Brown wrote:

againstthehead wrote:I thought lacey was saying that we couldn't take a prop off as we didn't have any props on the bench and we'd have to go to 14 men but maybe I just picked it up all wrong.

Is that the rule?

Yes. Was brought in as a part of the law change allowing two props on the bench. If you have no more front rows, the injured player can't be replaced. Suspect it would be too easy to game the system, otherwise, whereas injuries to three props in a game, as would be required to move to uncontested, is pretty rare.

Fair enough, so did we play the last 20mins with 14men?

Jackie Brown wrote:Fair enough, so did we play the last 20mins with 14men?

I'm not sure but I assume so? Annet came on for Herring and McComish came on about the same time but I didn't see who for? BBC listing for Muller but nearly sure that was Stevenson? Did Henderson go off? Beeb also saying Fitzpatrick didn't make it off the bench so not gonna put a lot of stock in that... Commentators seemed totally oblivious to that law, too. Don't remember either commenting on it?

Jackie Brown wrote:Fair enough, so did we play the last 20mins with 14men?

Yes, but we're so used to it now you never noticed!

Fitzpatrick came on for Lutton, then Warwick came on for Fitzpatrick when he got injured and Court went to tighthead, then Court went off injured in the 63rd minute and we played on for the rest of the game with 14 men.

Stevenson did come on for Muller.

Neil F wrote:

Jackie Brown wrote:

againstthehead wrote:I thought lacey was saying that we couldn't take a prop off as we didn't have any props on the bench and we'd have to go to 14 men but maybe I just picked it up all wrong.

Is that the rule?

Yes. Was brought in as a part of the law change allowing two props on the bench. If you have no more front rows, the injured player can't be replaced. Suspect it would be too easy to game the system, otherwise, whereas injuries to three props in a game, as would be required to move to uncontested, is pretty rare.

That can't be right. Why was Annett allowed on then?

Annett came on for Herring by my reckoning. Judging by the scrum cap, it was McComish doing the propping in the uncontested scrums.

]It looked to me that someone (Luke?) was going off on plays which started with an uncontested scrum, but I could be wrong!

Neil F wrote:Annett came on for Herring by my reckoning. Judging by the scrum cap, it was McComish doing the propping in the uncontested scrums.

So we were down to 14?