NPR

Raggs wrote: Mon Aug 31, 2020 5:51 pm First instinct is that the scenario listed isn't what happened. But I am interested, looking at the law book now.

I think they have a valid point, depowering the scrum did play into Wasps hands, Bath use their scrum much more offensively than Wasps. Was it an failed HIA or an injury?

ASMO wrote: Mon Aug 31, 2020 5:57 pm

Raggs wrote: Mon Aug 31, 2020 5:51 pm First instinct is that the scenario listed isn't what happened. But I am interested, looking at the law book now.

I think they have a valid point, depowering the scrum did play into Wasps hands, Bath use their scrum much more offensively than Wasps. Was it an failed HIA or an injury?

First scrum, whilst no penalty, Wasps had the advantage, then next one I remember, Wasps won it. Yes, after all the injuries, Bath would have been stronger, but from the start Wasps were doing fine in the scrum.

I'm searching the law book, and can't find anything on losing a player at the moment. Old law that was removed?

Got it.

3.17. In a squad of 23 players or at the discretion of the match organiser, a player
whose departure has caused the referee to order uncontested scrums cannot
be replaced.

That reads like Wasps should have gone to 14.

EDIT - So it may be Prem rugby have said that it's allowed, Match organiser can make the call perhaps.

3rd bump.

If it's HIA or blood, temporary replacement is allowed, even if all subs have been used etc. Laws explicitly state that once it's timed out, the replacement becomes permanent. A work around in effect. Works for me, and helps encourage players go off for an HIA.

The moment in question... I played loose and tight, but even with amateur scrums wouldn't want to go in as hook untrained/after years off. Opposition front row would target you like an all you can eat buffet!

I found this match thoroughly entertaining so not sure what the cheap seats are moaning about.

Even allowing for my bias I think it's game of the round.

not sure why they took off matavesi early, he was the only one making cracks and then bring a kid to fullback moving the England fullback to wing.. dumb move in the last 20misn cost them.

Everyone is having to manage playing time.

Rewatching the game now. Ranting a bit in response to Bath fans comments. Barnes clearly states that as it's a head injury, we don't need to go to 14 players. He does make a bit of a mistake saying someone needs to come off, but then also says they stay at 15, and then when it's pointed out that Oghre has come off, he realises his mistake, and they get on with it.

Suggesting that Wasps have tried to game injuries to remove baths strength, first scrum has Stuart being twisted in, but Barnes is the other side, 2nd is very stable, 3rd is Wasps and is done quick, 4th (after taylor is off) see's Stuart twisted in again and Barnes blows him for it, and 5th and final scrum is another mess, that looks like stuart is binding on Wests arm to me. But at no point did bath have anything to suggest dominance.

Yes, West may have refused to play hooker, because that could have given bath a big advantage in scrums, but let's be fair, at that point, if he's not written on the teamsheet as a hooker replacement, then why would you do that if you didn't have to. Wasps were already disadvantaged in losing 2 good players, and no longer having a player to throw into the lineout.

Next big rant was the penalty try (not seen it yet) and yellow card, but Bath didn't get a pen try and card, when they scored anyway. Ignoring the fact that the card and pen try come from stopping a probable try, which clearly didn't happen because they scored. If we do want to change the rules, then Bath can lose someone to a yellow for the first Wasps try, when Bath collapse the maul 2 meters out.

Rant probably over.

Those fans might want to consider listening to the ref when he explains decisions. Few are as clear and concise as Barnes.

They might also want to contemplate the good fortune of not having the incident which resulted in Young's failed HIA looked at a second time.