{"id":2583,"date":"2011-12-09T09:10:57","date_gmt":"2011-12-09T15:10:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/texasrugbyunion.com\/?p=2583"},"modified":"2015-08-19T19:05:47","modified_gmt":"2015-08-19T19:05:47","slug":"2011-irb-law-rulings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/texasrugbyref.com\/2011\/12\/09\/2011-irb-law-rulings\/","title":{"rendered":"2011 IRB Law Rulings"},"content":{"rendered":"

Dear Referee Organization Chairs,<\/p>\n

The IRB has issued three Rulings within the last week. Please distribute this to all Unions, clubs, Local Referee Organizations and referees in your area. Here is a synopsis<\/a> or read below.<\/p>\n

Please feel free to write or call if you have any questions.<\/p>\n

Peter Watson<\/a>
\nChair USA Rugby Law Committee<\/p>\n

\n

2011 IRB Law Rulings<\/strong><\/h2>\n

2011 IRB Ruling # 1 (June)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Front Row Replacements 13.12 (b)<\/strong><\/p>\n

This Ruling addresses the questions raised when some or all front replacements have been used and further front row replacements are needed due to injury. The question was framed in terms of non-contested scrums, although the answer goes beyond just that circumstance.<\/p>\n

When a front row player has to be replaced:
\n\u00b7 If there is a front row reserve that has not been used, he must be used even if this causes the referee to order non-contested scrums.
\n\u00b7 If all the front row reserves have been used, but there is a front row player who was substituted out (tactical change) still available, that player must be used rather than any other player even if the referee has to order non-contested scrums.
\nThis addresses the situation where the front row reserve available is not trained for that particular position (e.g. the second hooker is injured and the remaining reserves are only trained to prop). The IRB is saying that it is better to have a player with front row experience, even in non-contested scrums, than some other player.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

2011 IRB Ruling # 2 (November)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Going to ground in a maul \u2013 Law 17<\/strong><\/p>\n

This Ruling addresses the rights and responsibilities of players in a maul when the player in possession of the ball goes to ground voluntarily.<\/p>\n

BE SURE THERE IS A MAUL. Recognize the difference between a true maul and a \u201cstanding tackle\u201d situation.<\/p>\n

Before getting into the details, there are four points which must be emphasized:<\/p>\n