The IRB think Rolland was right.
The referee had ruled that the Wallabies had already used their seven replacements – two of them involving the same player, loose-head prop Benn Robinson.
The Wallabies believed that Fainga'a should have been allowed on as another front-row option, but the governing body has ruled that Rolland was correct.
Advertisement
“The referee was correct,” said the IRB's James Fitzgerald in response to an inquiry from the Fairfax. “Australia had already used their seven replacements permissible.”
The referee had ruled that the Wallabies had already used their seven replacements – two of them involving the same player, loose-head prop Benn Robinson.
The Wallabies believed that Fainga'a should have been allowed on as another front-row option, but the governing body has ruled that Rolland was correct.
Advertisement
“The referee was correct,” said the IRB's James Fitzgerald in response to an inquiry from the Fairfax. “Australia had already used their seven replacements permissible.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...n-wrong-irb-20121003-26y7w.html#ixzz28D6ouNkb
Although I haven't been able to find a lengthy reasoning online, it appears from this little quote that for the purposes of 3.4, an injury "replacement" is treated the same as a tactical "substitution". You get 7 changes, regardless of whether they are for injury or tactical.
Is there any other way of reading what Mr Fitzgerald has said?