Rules bullet dodged when Evans missed

LEINSTER’S semi-final slot was in doubt right up to the final whistle when Harlequins did everything to engineer a winning drop goal from Nick Evans. Had he succeeded, all hell could have erupted as his re-entry to the field was shrouded in controversy.

Introduced as a blood replacement for Tom Williams, there was a suggestion — with good cause it must be said — that Harlequins manufactured that situation with the aid of theatrical dye. That said, Leinster’s initial complaint was that Evans had been substituted as an injured player and therefore could not return. To referee Nigel Owens’ credit, he checked with the fourth official and asked the vital question: was Evans “a substitution or a replacement”.

It was a technical but very relevant question.

When replacing a player, the team’s representative must confirm to the fourth official whether the change is a tactical replacement or a substitution. The difference is that a substitute cannot be reintroduced for a blood injury while a technical replacement can. There is a misconception that only a front row player can be brought back on for blood. This is not the case. Often a team considering the possibility of uncontested scrums will declare a change in the front row as a substitution thus negating the possibility of him returning in the event of another front row injury and subsequently uncontested scrums follow.

These are all loopholes that the IRB need to examine. Either way the quantity (and even the colour) of the blood on Williams mouth looked a little strange to me. In the circumstances, one suspects Evans’ late miss was as much a relief to the ERC committee as it was to Leinster.