Laws of Rugby - 3.5

The ARU has requested rulings relating to Law 3.5.

Under Law 3.5 (a) a team is required to provide a specified number of suitably trained and experienced front row players depending on the number of players nominated for the team. Law 3.5 (c) specifies the requirements for front row replacements where teams are comprised of 19, 20, 21 or 22 players.

The Australian Rugby Union seeks a ruling in relation to the application of the above Law:

1. Where a team is unable to comply with the requirements of Law 3.5 (a) or (c), either at the beginning of the match or during a match (thus causing non-contested scrums to be played):

a. Can that team be prevented (by competition rule) from substituting or replacing ANY player who leaves the field (through injury) or from making substitutions during the match. [Therefore, in effect limiting the team to a maximum of 15 players]?

b. Can the opposing team be awarded a Free Kick (or the option of a scrum) where the team that is unable to comply with Law 3.5 causes the stoppage in play?

c. Can the match commence with non-contested scrums or should the teams be required to play contested scrums?

2. Where non-contested scrums are played, is it possible to prevent back row moves, [e.g. the No. 8 picking up the ball and linking with other players in a tactical move]?
ARU believes that the intention of the Law is for non-contested scrums to be played where one or both teams are unable to provide suitably trained or experienced players to play in the front row (either at the start of a match or during a match).

ARU is also strongly of the view that at the Community level of the game, the effect of introducing competition rules that provide a sanction or penalty (either prior to, during the match, or post match) for the teams that are unable to comply with Law 3.5 has the potential to lead to untrained or inexperienced players being placed in an unsafe situation by team officials who wish to comply with Law 3.5 in order to avoid the sanction or penalty imposed if they do not comply.

IRB Ruling 2:2003 in regard to Law 3.5 also refers in relation to teams that fail to comply with Law 3.5, including advice on sanctions. In view of the ARU concerns in relation to safety issues can the IRB please advise in relation to the appropriateness of competition rules that require the following in situation where a team is responsible for non-contested scrums being played:

a. that team be required to forfeit the match or have competition points deducted if they win the match;

b. that team be fined by a competition manager for non – compliance with Law 3.5
The Designated Members have ruled the following in answer to the question raised:

1(a) No. The competition rule would contravene Law 3.4 which permits substitutions, 3.7 which permits permanent replacements and 3.10 which permits temporary replacements. The Union having jurisdiction over a match does have the power to decide how many replacements / substitutes can be nominated and to that end could state that in a match where there are not suitably trained front row players as required by Law 3.5 then there shall be no substitutions/replacements in that match. This would be the situation if it was known before the match that a team or teams did not have the required number of suitably trained and experienced front row players.

1(b) There is no provision within Law that permits the referee to award a Free Kick in this situation.

1(c) If a team states prior to the match that they do not have suitably trained and experienced front row players to comply with Law 3.5 the game MUST NOT commence with contested scrums. It is up to the Union having jurisdiction over the match or the match organiser (competition regulations) to decide whether a match commences with non-contested scrums or whether the match is cancelled or postponed.

2. There are no provisions in Law that would restrict how the game is played. Individual competition rules are the responsibility of the Union or match organiser having jurisdiction for the match and the rules should be appropriate to the level of competition and environment in which competition matches are played. Competition rules should support compliance with the Laws of the Game and IRB and Union regulations whilst not encouraging any actions that could be deemed unsafe or that might encourage unsafe practices.