| NEW
LAW CHANGES - 2002/2003 - 2003/2004 Season |
iRB Law Changes - Requested
by NZRFU
iRB Law Changes - June
2003
iRB Law Changes - April
2003
iRB Law Changes - October
2003 |
| |
| iRB
Law Changes - Requested by NZRFU |
|
|
 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? |
|
| |
| The
Designated Members have ruled the following in answer to questions
raised: |
| 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,
which 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?
Ruling
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.
|
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?
Ruling
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. |
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?
Ruling
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. |
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
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. |
|
|
| |
