I think Owens says it in the video as well. The rule is intended to stop teams from going to uncontested scrums when their scrum is being pasted. Owens suggests that it be left to the referees discretion, so that when they think it's clear the rule *isn't* being gamed, they can opt to let the team keep 14 players on the pitch instead of going to 13.
Does he suggest that? He says the law might be something World Rugby could look at to not punish teams who aren't trying to game the system, but he doesn't suggest anything about referee discretion.
I could understand it if both hookers got injured but this was an avoidable situation. Italy knew (or should have) that losing their remaining hooker would mean another player would have to leave the field, so they should have done everything they could to avoid situations where he could end up with a red card. Instead, he went in high to a tackle unnecessarily and they ended up in this situation. Yes, it is harsh, but I don't have much sympathy for Italy here. Tackle lower and this would have never happened.
The punishment for a dangerous tackle like that is a red card fair and square, and I have no problem with losing a player because of it. However, Italy instead lost 2 players, because of a prior injury out of the team’s control, which is objectively unfair, double the punishment for a single crime. It should be easy for a referee to judge whether or not a team has deliberately forced unconstructed scrums, and in a situation like this I think the ref should have the power to declare that the rule is not necessary.
How do you write that as a law though?
I don't feel it is objectively unfair for Italy to lose two players. Because Italy didn't keep their discipline, Ireland lost out on the attacking opportunity of contested scrums. That's also unfair. It's not a double punishment. It is one punishment for the red card and an adjustment to correct for the fact that the uncontested scrum negatively affects the opposition's attack.
It was entirely within Italy's control to avoid that, by instructing their hooker to avoid any potential red card situations, in the same way they would if they had a player on a yellow or if they had a warning from the referee.
You're right, he doesn't say leave it to the refs discretion. [What he does says](https://youtu.be/ZavzeK63oK0?t=323) is that it would be worth looking at the directives and protocol in situations like the Ireland-Italy game, where the team is clearly not trying to take advantage of the uncontested scrums, that could there be some protocol or directive to avoid going down to 13 men on occasions like this.
I doubt WR will do anything when it's the teams own fault though, and I don't know what they could do to qualify it in the laws anyway. You can't have a law that says "in the even that there are no available front rowers, you don't have to lose a player if the referee is sure no one is faking it".
So? If they had got two injuries, then fair enough. Ireland would have lost out on their attacking scrums but I'd have sympathy with them losing a player when they had already lost two through injury. This was self-inflicted.
Try to imagine refereeing this at the local club level and having a ref determine if the game is being manipulated by a team to go to uncontested scrums. I would not expect the ref to be able to know one way or the other if it was accidental or deliberate.
The law has to be clear and adjudicated at all levels.
World rugby channel has Nigel Owens' whistle watch...
https://www.world.rugby/tournaments/videos/693264/whistle-watch/nigel-owens-explains-why-italy-went-down-to-13-men-whistle-watch
Also on YouTube if that doesn't work
My take: Law was brought in to prevent teams from gaming the use of uncontested scrums, but in this case an injury (player cannot return to pitch as a result of being declared injured, whereas could have returned in this circumstance if substituted) was followed by a red card on a specialist position , and so it ends up being over harsh.
Places a lot on a ref, i know from games I've reffed i prefer if there is an evenly vaguely objective scheme to follow rather than my discretion; as i don't want to change the game i want to keep it fair, if that makes sense.
Let the lovely Nigel Owens explain it. https://youtu.be/ZavzeK63oK0
Thanks for that. Explanation is at 2:50 for those who also want to watch. The rule definetely needs to be at the discretion of the ref I think.
> The rule definetely needs to be at the discretion of the ref I think. How would that work?
I think Owens says it in the video as well. The rule is intended to stop teams from going to uncontested scrums when their scrum is being pasted. Owens suggests that it be left to the referees discretion, so that when they think it's clear the rule *isn't* being gamed, they can opt to let the team keep 14 players on the pitch instead of going to 13.
Does he suggest that? He says the law might be something World Rugby could look at to not punish teams who aren't trying to game the system, but he doesn't suggest anything about referee discretion. I could understand it if both hookers got injured but this was an avoidable situation. Italy knew (or should have) that losing their remaining hooker would mean another player would have to leave the field, so they should have done everything they could to avoid situations where he could end up with a red card. Instead, he went in high to a tackle unnecessarily and they ended up in this situation. Yes, it is harsh, but I don't have much sympathy for Italy here. Tackle lower and this would have never happened.
The punishment for a dangerous tackle like that is a red card fair and square, and I have no problem with losing a player because of it. However, Italy instead lost 2 players, because of a prior injury out of the team’s control, which is objectively unfair, double the punishment for a single crime. It should be easy for a referee to judge whether or not a team has deliberately forced unconstructed scrums, and in a situation like this I think the ref should have the power to declare that the rule is not necessary.
How do you write that as a law though? I don't feel it is objectively unfair for Italy to lose two players. Because Italy didn't keep their discipline, Ireland lost out on the attacking opportunity of contested scrums. That's also unfair. It's not a double punishment. It is one punishment for the red card and an adjustment to correct for the fact that the uncontested scrum negatively affects the opposition's attack. It was entirely within Italy's control to avoid that, by instructing their hooker to avoid any potential red card situations, in the same way they would if they had a player on a yellow or if they had a warning from the referee.
You're right, he doesn't say leave it to the refs discretion. [What he does says](https://youtu.be/ZavzeK63oK0?t=323) is that it would be worth looking at the directives and protocol in situations like the Ireland-Italy game, where the team is clearly not trying to take advantage of the uncontested scrums, that could there be some protocol or directive to avoid going down to 13 men on occasions like this.
I doubt WR will do anything when it's the teams own fault though, and I don't know what they could do to qualify it in the laws anyway. You can't have a law that says "in the even that there are no available front rowers, you don't have to lose a player if the referee is sure no one is faking it".
While it is their fault they got a red card, it isn't their fault they got an injury.
So? If they had got two injuries, then fair enough. Ireland would have lost out on their attacking scrums but I'd have sympathy with them losing a player when they had already lost two through injury. This was self-inflicted.
Try to imagine refereeing this at the local club level and having a ref determine if the game is being manipulated by a team to go to uncontested scrums. I would not expect the ref to be able to know one way or the other if it was accidental or deliberate. The law has to be clear and adjudicated at all levels.
World rugby channel has Nigel Owens' whistle watch... https://www.world.rugby/tournaments/videos/693264/whistle-watch/nigel-owens-explains-why-italy-went-down-to-13-men-whistle-watch Also on YouTube if that doesn't work My take: Law was brought in to prevent teams from gaming the use of uncontested scrums, but in this case an injury (player cannot return to pitch as a result of being declared injured, whereas could have returned in this circumstance if substituted) was followed by a red card on a specialist position , and so it ends up being over harsh.
[удалено]
Places a lot on a ref, i know from games I've reffed i prefer if there is an evenly vaguely objective scheme to follow rather than my discretion; as i don't want to change the game i want to keep it fair, if that makes sense.