Biarritz a man short

Just watching a few minutes of Biarritz playing Toulon before the Six Nations gets started. According to the commentary, Biarritz have turned up for the match with only 22 players. They are playing away, so you have to guess there is no registered player available nearby to fill a late withdrawal. It seems they are missing a lock replacement. They might have suffered some illness in camp but you`d assume, under normal circumstances, they would have added a back row player just to make up the numbers.

Anyone recall a similar situation in the Aviva or Rabo?

Glasgow Warriors only had 22 recently with no prop on the bench but I cannot remember when ? Think it went to uncontested scrums but they still won - maybe v Zebre ?

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:Glasgow Warriors only had 22 recently with no prop on the bench but I cannot remember when ? Think it went to uncontested scrums but they still won - maybe v Zebre ?

Is it not a requirement in the Rabo to nominate three front rowers, Schizoid? That's why the extra sub was introduced - to avoid uncontested scrums.

I can understand no penalty for not nominating a full bench, but light in the front row imo deserves a point penalty if the extra FRer is required as it potentially encourages cheating the paying public and/or the opposition like Wasps were infamous for on occasion.

greytiger wrote:

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:Glasgow Warriors only had 22 recently with no prop on the bench but I cannot remember when ? Think it went to uncontested scrums but they still won - maybe v Zebre ?

Is it not a requirement in the Rabo to nominate three front rowers, Schizoid? That's why the extra sub was introduced - to avoid uncontested scrums.

I can understand no penalty for not nominating a full bench, but light in the front row imo deserves a point penalty if the extra FRer is required as it potentially encourages cheating the paying public and/or the opposition like Wasps were infamous for on occasion.

Yea I'd have thought that the leagues governing body what want to look in to that and ask why in a day and age of squads of 40+ players a team couldn't meet the minimum requirements for a game?

It was in the HEC not in the rabo that Glasgow couldn't field a replacement prop (even though they had 3 fit props but not in this stupid HEC list).

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:Glasgow Warriors only had 22 recently with no prop on the bench but I cannot remember when ? Think it went to uncontested scrums but they still won - maybe v Zebre ?

Glasgow certainly came to Ravenhill for their HEC game with only 22 players because they didn't have another fit prop in their HEC squad. It did not go to uncontested scrums and they lost 23 v 6. Maybe there was another time?

That was the stupidity of the ERC rules though- they had a prop but couldn't register him as they had already used their allocated number of changes!

As far as I understand it, Glasgow gambled initially by choosing one less front rower than usual- is this true or am I talking Tesco Meatballs*?

(* horse b*llocks)

Findus