'This law needs to change' - Outrage at arcane rule that killed Ireland vs Italy

There was widespread anger online after Italy, already heavy underdogs, were forced to play with thirteen players against Ireland due to an arcane piece of scrum law.

Ireland beat Italy 57-6 in their Guinness Six Nations match in Dublin but the controversial decision made the event something of bloodless coup.

It all started with a red card.

The Azzurri suffered the major setback in the 19th minute when replacement hooker Hame Faiva, who came on for the injured Gianmarco Lucchesi, was sent off for a high tackle on Sheehan.

Facing Goliath | A story following Italy as they take on the mighty All Blacks | A Rugby Originals Documentary

Facing Goliath | A story following Italy as they take on the mighty All Blacks | A Rugby Originals Documentary

Ireland swiftly took advantage as Jamison Gibson-Park crossed, with Carbery adding the extras. However, it got worse for Italy thanks to Law 3.20.

Italy were left two men down after the premature departures of of the stricken Lucchesi and dismissed Faiva led to uncontested scrums, meaning they were required to sacrifice a further player under World Rugby rules.

Number eight Toa Halafihi was the man withdrawn. The game was then effectively over as a contest at the break, with Ireland 24-6 ahead, playing against 13 men and having already secured a bonus point.

Italy international Tommasso Allan tweeted: “What a way to ruin a rugby game…this rule doesn’t make sense”

What a way to ruin a rugby game…this rule doesn’t make sense

— Tommaso Allan (@Allan_Tommy) February 27, 2022

Bristol Bears prop Max Lahiff, an expert on scrum matters, described it as a shambles, writing: “Gonna have to change the laws after this shambles. Surely?! Yeeesh. Hollow. Despite what would of been.”

Gonna have to change the laws after this shambles. Surely?! Yeeesh. Hollow. Despite what would of been.

— Max Lahiff (@LahiffMax) February 27, 2022

Connacht head coach Andy Friend wasn’t impressed; “The longer this game goes on, the more bizarre that ruling becomes. Under the guise of ‘player safety’ (which I fully support), we now ask 13 men + 4 eligible reserves to play for 60 mins against 23 fit players. This law needs to change”

The longer this game goes on, the more bizarre that ruling becomes. Under the guise of ‘player safety’ (which I fully support), we now ask 13 men + 4 eligible reserves to play for 60 mins against 23 fit players ?????. This law needs to change #IREvITA

— Andy Friend (@andyfriend2011) February 27, 2022

Writer Michael Aylwin branded it an embarrassment. “Just watching #IREvITA on catch up. A sport gets the reputation it deserves. Christ, rugby union is an embarrassment. And to be clear, this red-card madness of the past five years has done next to nothing to reduce concussion. As for CTE, it won’t even do that.”

Just watching #IREvITA on catch up. A sport gets the reputation it deserves. Christ, rugby union is an embarrassment

And to be clear, this red-card madness of the past five years has done next to nothing to reduce concussion. As for CTE, it won’t even do that

— Michael Aylwin (@mdmaylwin) February 27, 2022

Reporter Paul Eddison wrote: “Feel bad for Nika Amashukeli, who is a promising young ref and now finds himself in an impossible situation.”

Feel bad for Nika Amashukeli, who is a promising young ref and now finds himself in an impossible situation#IREvITA

— Paul Eddison (@pauleddison) February 27, 2022

Rugby World writer Alan Dynock branded the rule ‘madness’.

This law is madness, no? #IREvITA

— Alan Dymock (@AlanDymock) February 27, 2022

Some did defend the Law, pointing it that it did have a purpose. “If this law didn’t exist, teams could name only one hooker in their 23 and revert to uncontested scrums after one injury or card to the hooker. It’s a law designed to maintain a fair scrum contest which works 95% of the time, but this game is that other 5% of the time.”

https://twitter.com/ek_rugby/status/1497970514803183619

Given the stature of the game, expect World Rugby to review the law, or at least issue a clarification.