Law 3.5.......not so clear

Law 3.5 - which governs the front row and replacements:

A team must have six players who can play in the front row.
b) Prior to the match teams must advise the referee of their front row players and replacements. Each player in the front row and any potential replacements must be suitably trained and experienced.
(c) The replacement of a front row player must come from the suitably trained and experienced players who started the match or from nominated replacements. A player other than a nominated front row player is permitted to play in the front row only when uncontested scrums are being played and there are no available front row replacements.
(g) If a union or match organiser decides to have 23 players nominated for a team there must be sufficient front row players to play at hooker, tighthead prop and loosehead prop who are suitably trained and experienced to ensure that on the first occasion that a replacement is required in each front row position, the team can continue to play safely with contested scrums.
(h) If, because of a sending off or injury, a team cannot provide enough suitably trained front row players, the match continues with uncontested scrums.
(m) If there are no further front row replacements available when a front row player leaves the field of play, is sent off or temporarily suspended, uncontested scrums will be ordered. It is not the responsibility of the referee to determine the suitability of trained front row replacements nor their availability, as this is a team responsibility.

 I see nothing in the wording that says you can't have two tighthead replacements, or that you can't  nominate a player, in this case Nyakane, in two positions. All it says is that the players have to be suitably trained for the front row positions, which Nyakane clearly is.
"it is not the responsibility of the referee to determine the suitability of trained front row replacements, nor their availability, as this is a team responsibility."

Perhaps this rule has been modified in use....but a strict reading of the law seems to say the team has to provide a replacement for each front row position and that suitability is in the team's purview.

Basis that it sounds to me the team should have informed the ref that Nyakane was a suitable replacement....and he should have accepted that.

 Unless there is some other laws pertaining it would appear the team made a mistake.
However to suggest cowardice is folly. Meyer may have his laws wrong.
It might have been a match deciding error. Boks should have scrummed the abs on their line with only 7 forwards. Might have got a penalty try etc. 

 You are right Mozart it is not crystal clear. Reading the rules it sounds like a captain and coach are within their rights to say a player meets this criteria. It does not specifically say that the team sheet & the position listed for the player is the end of the story. It would be good to know who made the decision.
Here is a post from the ROAR said about law 3m :

• etienne marais said | July 27th 2015 @ 12:00am | Report comment

  Law 3 (m) “If there are no further front row replacements available when a front row player leaves the
  field of play, is sent off or temporarily suspended, uncontested scrums will be ordered. It is
  not the responsibility of the referee to determine the suitability of trained front row
  replacements nor their availability, as this is a team responsibility.”

  So, still a strange decision, Whoever made it. Although primarily a LH, Nyakane is a trained and experienced TH. Since it is not the referee’s responsibility to make the decision regarding the replacement’s suitability (which he might not have been sufficiently informed to adjudicate), who made the decision and on what grounds ?

 Sounds like Meyer didnt know the rule. But who on the field made the decision. I cant believe Burger would have wanted an uncontested scrum!! That is ludicrous.
Somewhere the issue was bungled and not to the B oks advantage.

 Yes, it was burngled

If the  interpretation that a player can be qualified in two front row positions is not correct, how can a prop who starts at loosehead ever legally shift to tighthead. Or how can a big hooker like Smit was, ever shift to prop during the game.

It all seems a little contradictory....is this another Duckworth Lewis problem?

 Mozart
I am still not sure what happened.   In the post-match discussions it was alleged that a message was sent to the referee that Nyakane can scrum both at Tighthead and loosehead, only the management know whether that is so or not.
However, from the published comments made by Meyer afterwards it appeared that it was not the case.  I think the fact is that Meyer made the mistake in this case - he must have misinterpreted the laws involved inasmuch as that he took it that a loosehead replacement can only be used as a loosehead - not a tighthead - irrespective of the fact whether a player has been used and adequately trained to scrum on both sides.  Meyer must surely have known that  Nyakane can scrumn on both sides of the scrum - he was used as such by the Bulls and there was no problem with that in Bulls games where he came from the bench in games or even switched during games.
Be it as it may - this will be discussed in the next week and the issue may rebound on Meyer - so lets hope he can deflect the criticism - because it would be harsh to p ut it mildly.    

I thought it was part of the reason Nyakane was selected on the bench because of his versatility!

 "However, from the published comments made by Meyer afterwards it appeared that it was not the case.  I think the fact is that Meyer made the mistake in this case - he must have misinterpreted the laws involved inasmuch as that he took it that a loosehead replacement can only be used as a loosehead - not a tighthead - irrespective of the fact whether a player has been used and adequately trained to scrum on both sides.  Meyer must surely have known that  Nyakane can scrumn on both sides of the scrum - he was used as such by the Bulls and there was no problem with that in Bulls games where he came from the bench in games or even switched during games."

Never miss a chance to jump on one of your pet hates' back, do you? How many times have you checked the facts on this issue. The ref was the one who ordered the uncontested scrums and he was the one who decided that he was going to stick to what was on the team sheet.

Ceradunce
How often have we pleaded with you to read legal and ruile requirements  properly in this case.   From what Mozart quoted today the responsibility to decide on that issue the referee is not responsible for that decision - the team management is.    
The referee took the decision -= but there was no way that he could have done so if he was advised by the team management what the real situation is.  Be it as it may - I based my comments on what Meyer said after the match.     His comments indicated that the problem was decided by him based on his interpretation of the rules.   I went on to say that he does not get into a flak situation again - because he is constantly under pressure as a result of certain selections, he does not need further furore.  
It was not an attack on Meyer as interpreted by the third most idiotic site member - it was merely a factual observation.        

 "How often have we pleaded with you to read legal and ruile (sic) requirements  properly in this case."

Oh really? Mate, you are f'king delusional. In any case, this is the part that you clearly do not understand, especially when read in conjunction with what actually happened. The ref decided to stick to the letter of the law and did not deem Nyakane - in his (humble?) - opinion to be "trained" to play in the TH position. I have already quoted an article about this on another thread and I cannot be bothered to go search for it again. It was the referee's decision that Nyakane was not a "trained" tighthead prop and there is nothing that anybody could have done about it, or have you forgotten that the referee has the final say in everything?

 The procedures for the team sheet should be changed so that players that can play in other positions in the front row are designated as such. If this was in place Nyakane could have played.

Dunce
Shall I remind you about your BS about the test window issue where you went off the rails badly.
Nyakane replaced the no 3 prop and if advised properly doffies - he would not have taken the decision that he actually took. But Meyer's subsequent said how he interpreted the rules and that is what is at issue here.  If Meyer insisted that uncontested scrums are not necessary in this case - would the referee on his own have decided otherwise.  
It is Meyer's subsequent comments that is problematic if read together with the actual rules being vague in that it could be interpreted differently that is the key to this issue.  But then you are so dumb you do not have the vaguest understanding of what is written here.  
Dumb bunny - the article quoted contained Meyer's dubious interpretation - so I would not be to proud of it if I were you.     

Geez, how deep do you want to dig, and even then you are talking kak as usual. You do not really want to start listing balls-ups again, do you?