To: Chief Executives / Secretaries of all Unions & Associations in Membership of the IRB
Re: IOC decision on Rugby Sevens

I am writing to you from Copenhagen where today the IOC Session voted to include Rugby Sevens in the 2016 Olympic Programme. This is truly an historic day for the development of the Game. The continued global expansion of Rugby is greatly strengthened by today’s decision. I wish to personally thank you and all of the Rugby stakeholders in your jurisdiction for all of your work and continued support for this project. It was a great team effort from all of the Rugby Family and I am proud of our achievement.

This decision will have a profound impact on the Game and while there will be challenges ahead, we can also look forward to the many benefits that Olympic inclusion will bring. As an Olympic sport, Rugby will attract new commercial partners and spectators. At the same time all of our Unions will enjoy new levels of government and access to facilities for training and development from National Olympic Committees and Government agencies as an Olympic Sport. The IRB has already been approached by a number of NOCs eager to find out how they can develop Rugby in their respective countries. Added to this, Olympic inclusion now means that Rugby will be given a greater opportunity to feature on the school curricula in many countries.

With today’s decision Rugby will be able to play an even greater role on the global, regional and national sporting and governmental stages allowing us to work with other sports to try to ensure that legislation and funding is in place to benefit Rugby and the greater sporting community. Working together with a clear global vision we can drive the growth of Rugby over the next 10 years.

Thank you once again for your support and passion in helping Rugby achieve its Olympic dream.

Yours sincerely,
Bernard Lapasset
Chairman IRB

The following competition regulation applies for any match that leads in any way to a USA Rugby National Championship

• All matches shall be governed by  IRB Law 3 with respect to substitutions and front row replacements. In  particular, Law 3.14 “Union Specific Variations” will apply to front row  replacements.  
• Failure to have three trained and  experienced front-row players at the start of a match will result in a  forfeit.  
• Teams shall submit a match roster  nominating a maximum of 23 players – 15 starting players and a maximum of  eight reserves.    
• The table below indicates the  required numbers of suitably trained and experienced front row players for  different numbers of players on the match  roster

Number of Players on the  roster
Required number of suitably trained and experienced Front  Row players
  15  3
  16, 17 or 18  4
  19, 20 or 21  5
  22 or 23  6 

Should a team lose all of their available front row players, then uncontested scrums will take place but the team opting out of  the set-piece will not be able to replace the injured player - forcing them to  continue with only fourteen players. (Note - This is a change to the existing Laws and ensures that a team going to uncontested scrums does not gain an advantage.)  

Excerpt from changes to Law 3 effective May 23, 2009

3.14 UNION SPECIFIC VARIATIONS
(a) A Union having jurisdiction  (or where a match or competition is played between teams from two or more Unions those Unions by agreement between them) may implement variations to Law 3 .4 for  matches below international level as set out in 3(b) and/or 3  (c) below .
 
(b) When 22 or 23 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 the first occasion that a replacement in any front row position is required, the team can continue to play safely with contested scrums.

(c) A provision may be introduced that where uncontested scrums are ordered as result of there being no suitably trained and experienced front row replacement for any reason, the team concerned play with not more than 14 players

(a) A Union having jurisdiction  (or where a match or competition is played between teams from two or more Unions those Unions by agreement between them) may implement variations to Law 3 .4 for  matches below international level as set out in 3(b) and/or 3  (c) below .
 
(b) When 22 or 23 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 the first occasion that a replacement in any front row position is required, the team can continue to play safely with contested scrums.

(c) A provision may be introduced that where uncontested scrums are ordered as result of there being no suitably trained and experienced front row replacement for any reason, the team concerned play with not more than 14 players

Ruling 2 – Grounding in In-Goal simultaneous with touching the Dead Ball Line

The scenario posed was one where a player touched the ball down in In-Goal and at the exact same time stepped onto or over the Dead Ball Line.
The Ruling was that the game was stopped with no evidence to award either a try or a 22 drop out. Therefore Law 20.1 (c) says there should be a five-meter scrum and 20.4 (d) awards the scrum to the attacking team. This is very similar to a “held up in In-Goal” situation. 

Ruling 3 – End of Time at scrum or lineout

If a scrum or lineout has been awarded and then time expires, the referee must allow play to continue until the scrum or lineout has been completed and ball next becomes dead. The question asked concerned a scrum that collapsed or was lifted without penalty. Should this scrum be reset or should the half be ended?
The Ruling was that since the scrum was stopped for safety reasons without reaching a successful conclusion, the scrum had not been completed and must be reset.
There was a similar question regarding a lineout that is awarded and then time expires. If the ball is thrown unfairly (e.g. not straight), the referee should end the half. The original lineout has been completed and there has been an infringement that made the ball dead.
[Note that if there were a penalty or free kick offense committed during the lineout, the kick should be awarded and play allowed to continue until it next becomes dead.] 

Ruling 4 – Formation of Ruck

This Ruling addresses the dividing line between a tackle and the formation of a ruck. At a tackle players who have complied with Tackle Law (on their feet, correct zone entry) may attempt to gain possession of the ball with hands. At a ruck players must not play the ball with their hands.
Since the definition of a ruck carries the direct implication that no player has possession when a ruck forms, if a player has possession of the ball prior to contact with an opponent (which would otherwise form the ruck) then that player may continue to play the ball.
This Ruling was accompanied by a video illustrating acceptable examples of players gaining possession and continuing to play the ball.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbNg9kkDjmo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbNg9kkDjmo
 
Note that in all examples shown the outcome is immediate production of the ball. If the actions of the first arriving player do not result in the ball becoming immediately available, then those actions should be viewed critically. 

Ruling 5 – Front Row Replacement

In the situation presented, a team started the match with the required number of front row replacements. The team had used its entire list of nominated replacements and due to injuries was no longer able to scrummage safely, resulting in uncontested scrums. The question asked was could the team bring in one of their other players who had been substituted to replace the front row player whose injury necessitated uncontested scrums (per Law 3.12)?
The Ruling was that the purpose of 3.12 is to allow contested scrums to continue. If there were no available front row players AND all other reserves have been used, then the team is not allowed to bring in some other player for the purpose of keeping fifteen on the field.
Note that the question asked and the answer given were quite narrow. Do not read more into this than there actually is, and don’t try to extrapolate.
[Editor’s Note: If a team has used up all of its replacements when another player gets injured and has to leave the pitch, they have to play short whatever the position of the last-injured player.] 

Ruling 6 – U19 Reduced Numbers in Scrums

This Ruling clarified that under U19 Variations, Law 20.1 (f), which requires matching numbers and formations in scrums, only requires reduced numbers in scrums if either team is short a forward.
• If either team loses a back (for any reason – injury, send-off, etc.) then scrums can continue with eight players.
• If either team loses a forward, then scrums must be reduced to seven for both teams. 

Ruling 7 – Joining a Ruck

This question addressed the manner in which players may join rucks. Law 16.2 (b) requires that a player join by binding onto a teammate.
The Ruling stated that players joining a ruck must bind before or simultaneously with contact by any other part of the joining player’s body, including the shoulder. This is a safety issue. Players cannot come in like a missile and then bind as an afterthought.
The Ruling also recognized that in some cases a ruck turns such that a player coming from an on-side position to join as required by 16.5 (c) may also bind onto an opponent. That is acceptable, keeping in mind Law 10.4 (j) no dangerous charging. 

Directives

In addition to the Rulings, the IRB also issued two directives requesting increased attention to two areas. 

Dangerous Tackling

The IRB reiterated a 2007 Ruling regarding tackles in which the ball carrier is lifted and tipped horizontally and then dropped or forced to the ground. The sanction for this should start at Red Card and work backwards only if there are extraordinary extenuating circumstances.
This was accompanied by a video example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8Dso8Gc0gc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8Dso8Gc0gc

Maul Obstruction

The IRB issued instructions for increased referee vigilance regarding obstruction at mauls. The three specific areas addressed are:
• Formation at a lineout, particularly by supporters of the jumper.
• Formation in open play, primarily from kicks.
• Ball carrier detaching at the back and continuing to move forward.
There is a video containing examples.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vVswqjHhqI&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vVswqjHhqI&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vVswqjHhqI&feature=related

Youth & High School Committee responded to a question from a State Based Rugby Organization concerning USA Rugby’s position on High School teams playing against College teams.  In summary, we stated that USA Rugby neither encourages nor discourages such matches, but leaves it in local hands to do what makes good sense in the particular set of circumstances.

We circulated the response to all Youth Leaders in the USA , and since then some Leaders expressed concern that the muscular and orthopedic disparities between men and women in this age range make it inappropriate for USA Rugby to grant wide discretion to coaches and match organizers in making such decisions.  We have, therefore, looked further into the matter, and have worked with USA Rugby’s Medical and Safety department to develop some guidance for local decision makers when considering such matches.

As a result, effective immediately, any match played between a High School or Under 19 team and a College team:

1.) Must be played under the Under 19 Variations to the Laws of the Game as framed by the IRB, and
2.) Must be refereed by a referee that has been certified by USA Rugby’s Referees and Laws Committee, or by an equivalent body,and
3.) A parent or legal guardian of any player that is less than eighteen years of age must be made aware, before the event, of that player’s possible participation in the match.

Such matches have been played for many years in the USA .  With the above guidelines in place we believe that coaches, in conjunction with match organizers, can be trusted to, and indeed will, make responsible and sensible decisions at the local level, with full regard for the safety of all players.

Katie Wurst
Youth Manager, USA Rugby