Who sits on the school bench?

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:19

After the match between the two Greys in Port Elizabeth we had a couple of queries from readers about the composition of the substitutes' bench.

Grey High of Port Elizabeth, the hosts, had some 2nd XV players who had played sitting around as back-ups in case of injury.

Grey College had players on their bench, who had not played. Their players were fresh. At half-time they made big changes, taking off their whole front row and replacing it with a fresh front row from the bench.

First of all there's what the law for Under-19 rugby says.

LAW 3: NUMBER OF PLAYERS - THE TEAM
3.5 (c) If a team nominates 22 players, it must have at least six players who can play in the front row in order that there is replacement cover for the loose head prop, hooker and tight head prop.
If a team nominates more than 22 players it must have at least six players who can play in the front row in order that there is replacement cover for the loose head prop, hooker and tight head prop. There must also be three players who can play in lock position.

3.12 A player who has been substituted may replace an injured player.

Those are the differences from the laws of the game on substitution that apply to older players.

Seven players is the right number. Of those seven on the bench three must be able to play in the front row and one at lock. The older players laws require two to be suitably trained front row players.

The law for players older than 19:

3.4 PLAYERS NOMINATED AS SUBSTITUTES
For international matches a Union may nominate up to seven replacements/substitutes. For other matches, the Union with
jurisdiction over the match decides how many replacements/substitutes may be nominated.

A team can substitute up to two front row players and up to five other players. Substitutions may only be made when the ball is dead and with the permission of the referee.

That little bit of law applies to Under-19 players as well - can substitute up to two front row players.

In Perth against Australia South Africa had three front row players on the bench and sued them all. To do that one of the players playing needed to be injured, which can be readily organised. But it requires cheating.

The loophole provided is the need to avoid uncontested scrums by having suitably trained people in the front row.

For Grey College to replace its whole front row it needed to manipulate the law as well. Mind you it's odd to stipulate three and then stipulate that only two are allowed to be used in the front row unless there is an injury. The reason for this is to act as a greater safeguard to front-row players in the case of injury.

It may be odd but that's the law.

By the Laws of the Game schools are allowed to have fresh players on their bench. Legally it's OK.

Educationally?

We approached some of the top schools in South Africa to find out who made up their bench. We are asking about matches when school plays school with several teams, not one-off matches when a fresh bench is the only possible bench.

Paarl Gim: Players who have played
Grey College of Bloemfontein: Players who have not played on some occasions
Grey High of Port Elizabeth: Players who have played
Dr EG Jansen: Players who have played but sometimes a fresh prop or a fresh loose forward
Glenwood: Players who have played
Paul Roos: Players who have played
Waterkloof: Players who have played
Michaelhouse: Players who have played
Outeniqua: Players who have played
Affies: Players who have played
Paarl Boys' High: Players who have played
Rondebosch: Players who have played
Bishops: Players who have played but sometimes a hooker.

A few schools will place players returning from injury on the bench to ease them back into 1st XV rugby, but by and large it seems that Grey College are the exception. And they do not always do it. Going to play Glenwood, they would not have fresh players on the bench.

When they played against Grey PE all their teams played including their second team. Now, Grey College had 14 players in the Free State team and eight in the Free State Academy team. Of those 22 players one played for the Grey College 2nd XV against Grey High. Two of their Free State players, including their captain, were injured. That gave them a powerful bench including two players who were in the Free State Craven Week side.

Of course, it is any school's right to choose whomsoever they wish in their teams. If they play within the laws and do not cheat, that is fine, but it does seem to buck normal practice amongst the top schools in South Africa.

Basil Bey, the legendary schools rugby coach and schoolmaster, said of having fresh players on the bench: "It's an educational disgrace."

The argument against keeping players back to form a bench for the 1st XV: A boy opts for rugby to play rugby. His school gives him the best chance to play rugby. After all the school serves the boy, not the other way around. It is not right and unnecessary to expect a boy to make this sort of sacrifice for the school.

Secondly, it makes winning the 1st XV match the be-all and end-all.  In the Grey case, the 2nd XV lost to Grey PE but did anybody care? Apart from the 2nd XV players, that is. The 1st XV had won. Grey College had beaten Grey PE. That's all that matters - or so it seems. The message to the 2nd XV is that you are expendable.

On 1 September 2007 the principals of 24 state boys' schools met in Cape Town and produced statements and resolutions about school rugby. The problem as they saw it was that there was too much emphasis on schools rugby. The 24 schools included Grey College.

So there is the debate.

Pro:
* We are acting within the laws of the game.
* We have a right to choose our boys as we see fit.
* There is no objection from our boys who are loyal to their school.
* We have so much depth it gives more players a chance to represent their school.
* Whether we like it or not rugby has a high profile and doing well does much to market the school. It is good for the while Grey College community.
* We have proved the worth of our way of doing things by the contribution we make to rugby in South Africa.
* We are properly preparing our boys for professional rugby.

Con:
* It is against the spirit of schools rugby.
* It makes winning too important.
* It deprives the boy the chance of development and fulfilment.
* It violates the principle that rugby at school is just a part of the whole educational package offered.