Clarification 1-2018

Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Request

The RFU seeks clarification on Law 3 and the Law Application Guideline that was issued in December 2017

We have noted the recent Law Application Guideline that, in summary, stated that, in 23-member squads, when a team is unable to contest the scrum due to a player being suspended (either temporarily or permanently) then the team will be reduced by two players – one for the suspension and one for the failure to contest the scrum. The effect is made all the greater by the current Global Law Trial, which requires a team, even for uncontested scrums, to have eight players in the scrum resulting in seven v five in the backs.

Whilst this will be a rare occurrence it could effectively end the match as a contest; we would not like to see a World Cup Final decided by the enacting of this LAP.

We therefore ask that you clarify the following:

1. Is the Law Application Guideline supported by Law? Law 3.6(d) states that a player, whose departure results in a team being unable to contest the scrum, cannot be replaced. We can see no provision in Law for a further player to have to leave the field if the departure is due to a suspension.
2. Is the following correct? If a front row player is suspended and uncontested scrums are ordered the following must occur:
   • The suspended player leaves the field; and
   • A further player leaves the field; and
   • A third player might have to leave the field to allow an available front row player to come on.

Through one incident three players from the same team may have to leave the field.

Is there a precedent for their being a different sanction for different levels of the game? The Law Application Guideline states that is only applies to 23-member squads, yet we can find no provision in the Laws for there to be differential sanctions. We note that in the Law Application Guideline, Law 3.6(d) is referenced to support this position, but in the Law Application Guideline this Law is not quoted in full, which if it were would show that that Law applies to any game where the “man off” option has been adopted. We are concerned that this sets a precedent for the elite game and the community game to diverge. Is this differential sanction supported by Law?

Clarification of the designated members of the Rugby Committee

1. Your original assumption that in 23 man squads, when a team is unable to contest the scrum due to a player being suspended (either temporarily or permanently) ((and the other specialist prop(s) are injured/ carded)) then the team will be reduced by two players – one for the suspension and one for the failure to contest the scrum. We agree that this is exacerbated by the new Global Law trial which requires a team, even for uncontested scrums, to have eight players in the scrum resulting in seven v five in the backs.
2. This is indeed a rare occurrence but is subject to tactical manipulation which this application guideline intended to minimize.
3. We are not sure what a LAP is?
4. In terms of your question regarding the Law Application Guideline (LAG) being supported by Law. There are 6 Law clarifications since 2009 in this regard. (5-2009; 1-2011; 3-2012; 5-2015; 5-2015; 3-2016). All the mentioned clarifications support a reduction in the number of players when uncontested scrums are caused by a team for any reason other than HIA, blood injury replacement and an injury after foul play occurred.
5. The following is correct:
   • If a front row player is suspended ((and the other specialist prop(s) are injured/ carded)) and uncontested scrums are ordered the following must occur:
   • The suspended player leaves the field as a result of foul play; and
   • At the next scrum a further player leaves the field when uncontested scrums are called; The uncontested scrums are an additional contravention of a law and requires a visible consequence to the team responsible for the uncontested scrums. and
   • A third player might have to leave the field to allow an available front row player to come on. In this instance the team would be left with 13 players (8 forwards and 5 backs at scrummage)
6. To endorse the integrity of the game and the intention of the laws to protect the game from manipulation of uncontested scrums there must be a consequence for a team responsible for uncontested scrums being called in the mentioned scenario. An example of manipulation of the laws is the circumstances of the Wales v Georgia during the 2017 Autumn Internationals.
7. There is a clear precedent for differential sanctions for 23 man squads e.g 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 23.16 just as there are differential laws for elite games using the HIA process.
8. Law 3.6(d) to use the old referencing is quoted in full in the LAG

Finally in terms of your concern about a World Cup Final being decided by the enactment of this LAG. A greater concern for us would be if a World Cup Final was decided by tactical manipulation of the front row replacement and Uncontested scrum laws.