Clarification 4-2003

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Request

NZRFU has requested a ruling with regard to Law 3.5 (d):

This Law states:
"When 19, 20, 21 or 22 players are nominated in a team there must be sufficient front row players to play at hooker, tight-head prop and loose-head prop who are suitably trained and experienced to ensure that on both the first and second occasions that a replacement in any front row position is required, the team can continue to play safely with contested scrums."

(1) What does the IRB actually mean by the phrase 'suitably trained and experienced'? Does this mean that a replacement player must be able to play in the position in a manner that ensures that the match can continue safely with fully contested scrums? Or is the IRB requiring that a replacement player be a specialist hooker, specialist tight-head or specialist loose-head prop?

(2) If in an International Test fixture, the starting hooker was permanently replaced due to injury and then his replacement hooker also received an injury which meant he had to leave the field permanently, would this team be in breach of Law 3.5(d) if they did not have another player, either on the field or the bench, who was able to fill this position, therefore ensuring that the fixture was able to continue with safe and contestable scrums?

(3) If in an International Test fixture the loose-head prop was permanently replaced due to injury and then a little later the replacement loose-head was replaced permanently due to injury, would this team be in breach of Law 3.5(d) if they did not have another player, either on the field or the bench, who was able to fill this position, therefore ensuring that the fixture was able to continue with safe and contestable scrums?

(4) If in an International Test fixture the hooker was permanently injured and replaced by the hooker from the bench and then a little later in the fixture the tight-head prop was permanently injured and replaced by the reserve prop on the bench, would this team be in breach if any of the front row now on the field left the field with a permanent injury and the team did not have another player, either on the field or the bench, who was able to fill this position, therefore ensuring that the fixture was able to continue with safe and contestable scrums?

Ruling of the designated members of the Rugby Committee

(1) A replacement player must be able to play in the position in a manner which ensures that the match can continue safely with fully contested scrums.

(2) The team would not be in breach of Law 3.5(d) as they had already replaced the hooker and as such are not required to have another player available to play at hooker.

(3) The team would not be in breach of Law 3.5(d) as they had already replaced the loose-head prop and as such are not required to have another player available to play at loose-head prop.

(4) The team would not be in breach of Law 3.5(d) as they had satisfied the Law by being able to ensure that on both the first and second occasions that a replacement in any front row position was required, the team had been able to continue to play safely with contested scrums.

Note 1: The IRB will monitor adherence to Law 3.5(d), and if it becomes evident that the Law is being abused, the issue will be readdressed.

Note 2: In tournaments under the control of the IRB, the Tournament Disputes Committee will treat non-adherence to Law 3.5(d) as a serious matter, and will be empowered to cancel and/or vary the result of a match and/or the points awarded in relation thereto, and to impose such other punishment as it considers appropriate.

Note 3: This Ruling is to be implemented immediately as of 12th June 2003 in both the northern and southern hemispheres.