Clarification 12-2003

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Request

The RFU has requested a ruling with regard clarification and interpretation of Law 3.5 (d) as follows:

'The starting tight-head prop is injured and replaced by the starting loose-head prop with the prop on the bench replacing the starting loose-head prop at loose-head. The player now playing at tight-head prop (the starting-loose head prop) is injured and there is no replacement. Is the team in breach of Law 3 in such circumstances?'

Ruling of the designated members of the Rugby Committee

In the scenario given, the team complied with Law on the first occasion. Due to the injury of their first replacement in that specific front-row position, they could not replace on the second occasion in the same position. They are not in breach of Law 3.5 (d). However, if the player who came on to play loose-head prop was the next player injured, and uncontested scrums ensued because there was no suitable replacement, then the team would be in breach of Law 3.5 (d).