Clarification 3-2006

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Request

1. An U19 team nominates more than 22 players and a lock is injured. Does the referee have to ask for the replacement to be a player trained for the position?

2. An U19 team nominating more than 22 players cannot comply with the 3 locks availability scenario. Does the referee have to start the match with uncontested scrums?

Ruling of the designated members of the Rugby Committee

This request has shown that there is a law anomaly in the U19 variations. The law intimates that if a team nominates 22 players there is no law requirement as to locks, but there is a requirement for there to be six players who can play in the front row in order to cover replacement in the three front row positions.
This philosophy is mirrored in senior law where, dependent on the number of players nominated, there must be a certain number of suitably trained and experienced players for the front row.
If, however in U19 law, a team nominates more than 22 players, there is now in current law a requirement that there must be three players that can play in the lock position.
Locks, however, are not considered to need the specialised requirements of training and experience that players in the front row require.
Therefore, the only reason why a team would be required to have three players to cover the lock positions in a team nominating more than 22 players would be tactical.
Having outined the anomaly and the philosophy and practicality of law, the answer to the rulings follow.

1. Law 3.5 (b) states that players in the front row and any potential replacements must be suitably trained and experienced and applies to both senior and U19 law. This does not apply to locks in senior or U19 law.

2. The referee does not have to start the match with uncontested scrums.