Clarification 9-2003

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Request

It is clear from the rulings in response to the NZRFU queries that: A team is not in breach of Law if it fails to cover the second injury to a hooker; or the second injury to a loose head prop; or the second injury to a tight-head prop.

However, the response to the ARU query states that: A team is in breach if it fails to cover the second injury when the injury to the tight head is followed by injury to the loose-head, or vice-versa.

This anomaly appears to be clearly inequitable and in contradiction of the rulings to the NZRFU queries.

We ask the Board to consider the above and to clarify that the intention is that: "A team must have a minimum of two replacements who are suitably trained and experienced to ensure that on the first occasion a replacement hooker is required, and/or the first occasion a replacement prop is required the team can continue to play safely with contested scrums".

This would mean that teams have the option of selecting a replacement hooker and a replacement prop capable of playing in both tight head and loose head positions; or of selecting an additional replacement front row at the expense of another position.

Ruling of the designated members of the Rugby Committee

(1) "A team must have a minimum of two replacements who are suitably trained and experienced to ensure that on the first occasion a replacement hooker is required, and/or the first occasion a replacement prop is required the team can continue to play safely with contested scrums. This would mean that teams have the option of selecting a replacement hooker and a replacement prop capable of playing in both tight head and loose head positions; or of selecting an additional replacement front row at the expense of another position."

(1) The intent of the Law is that on both the first and second occasions that a replacement is required in any front row position, the team can continue to play safely with contested scrums. The first two occasions’ combinations can be for example; hooker/tight-head prop, hooker/loose-head prop, tight-head prop/loose-head prop. This could be described as replacement 'across' the front row. Teams who cannot comply with this are in breach of Law 3.5 (d).

(2) The issue of replacements on the first two occasions with regards to the one position would be for example: hooker/hooker, loose-head prop/loose-head prop, tight-head prop/tight-head prop. A previous ruling has dealt with this issue. Teams who comply with Law on the first occasion, and due to the injury of their first replacement in that specific front-row position, cannot replace on the second occasion in the same position, are not in breach of Law 3.5 (d).

(3) The Designated Members do not believe there to be an anomaly in Rulings given in this an area of Law.