Marius refereed the match between the Bulls and the Crusaders. We were going to move him on from answering readers' questions but there are some regarding that match which are best answered from the horse's mouth.

Much has been said about the match. Our website carried the following STORY on the Monday after the match.

A lot of what was said was unfair to Marius, whose refereeing in a demanding match was excellent.

1. Name: Chris Pretorius

Question: Morning.

There's a lot of controversy over the last pass in the Bulls game this weekend which was a match decider and possibly the future of the Crusaders in their 2010 Super 14 campaign.

My question does not involve that pass because I think the game should of been over before that:

The Crusaders were in the lead in the last minutes of the game and had a line-out in their half, the won the ball and formed a ruck where the couldn't retrieve the ball again, and lost it. Sort of a "use it or lose it" situation. The Bulls took over and in the 79th minute went to ground and couldn't retrieve the ball, but the scrum was awarded to them. Both teams were on the front foot and moving forward, but two opposite calls were made.

So my question today is when the ball is "killed" and unplayable on the ground, who is awarded the scrum? And also with the new technology we have today the clock stops when time is off or there's an injury; so why doesn't the hooter sound as the clock strikes 80 minutes?

Marius Jonker: Hi Chris.

In the first scenario the tackle the Crusaders player (I think it was Chris Jack) lost the ball forward on the ground. This is the reason why the Bulls got the scrum.

When a tackle is made, a ruck is formed and no illegal stuff by players takes place and the ball does not emerge, then a scrum is awarded to the team going forward at the time of the tackle. If the defending team were able to tackle the ball-carrier backwards then the defending team were going forward when the tackle took place and they are awarded the scrum.

At each game there is an official timekeeper who stops and starts the clock during the game. When the referee signals time off for any reason such as foul play, injuries, TMO referrals and substitutions the clock is stopped and obviously started again when play is resumed. Referees and assistant referees have no control over this. We do run our own time as well just in case the clock stops working. Television time is not necessarily timekeeper's time and referees work on timekeeper's time.

I know that there were a lot of supporters out there questioning the clock on Friday night but I can assure you it was all in order. I awarded the last scrum before the hooter was sounded and for this reason the scrum had to be taken. This is law.

Regards, Marius.

2. Name: Andrew Madsen
 
Question: Dear Marius,

As a community referee in Melbourne, one question from that cracking game last weekend between the Bulls and the Crusaders. It relates to when a maul finishes, and the Laws pertaining to the next phase, e.g. tackle. The Crusaders took the ball into a maul and eventually one Crusader (perhaps No.10) emerged as a the ball-carrier, with two Bulls players still attached to the ball-carrier. While still on their feet, the maul appeared to be still taking place. I think the ball-carrier went to ground if my memory serves me correctly, with both Bulls players not releasing.
 
Should this be managed as a maul or a tackle. As the ball is not on the ground is it still a maul, or is it considered to be on the ground as the ball-carrier is on the ground ? Or is it now a tackle situation and thus are the Bulls players under an obligation to release the ball-carrier as they would in a tackle?
 
How do you manage defenders holding onto a ball-carrier going to ground in a maul ?

Marius Jonker: Hi Andrew.

The fact that Crusaders 10 emerges from the maul with ball tells me that the maul is over. He is then tackled by two Bulls players and they go to ground (tackle situation). The tackled player must be released by the tacklers.

Any player off his feet is out of the game. It does not matter whether this is a maul or a ruck. In a maul players are allowed to bind onto one another and when this maul goes to ground they are still bound. The dynamics of this collapse, sometimes, makes it difficult for players to release and roll away. By law they need to release and in the ideal situation this would be fantastic. It's not always possible and you need to manage this and apply sound judgement.

Cheers, Marius.

3. Name: Len van Heerden

Question: My question is concerning the Crusaders vs Bulls Match at Loftus.

The first issue happened with time having expired everywhere except in the head of the hooter blower.

(i) The ball was held up in the maul and ball should have been awarded to the Crusaders, hence ending the match.

(ii) When the winning try was scored, a couple of issues emerged.
 
a. The assistant referee was unsighted being at least blocked by Franks and Hougaard.
 
b. The assistant referee missed the forward movement (caused by the ensuing tackle) and merely and incorrectly ruled that Franks had knocked the ball back (Frank knocked the ball twice into Maku's head before the ball bounced into the hands of an offside Hougaard).

My question is, why would an unsighted assistant referee consider it more important to make the determination about the ball being knocked back, without considering that the ball was passed forward first? Also, he clearly did not see what happened and yet made a ruling, when he should have left it to Jonker.

Marius Jonker: Hi Len.

Good to hear from you.

a) I cannot disagree more. Jaco Peyper was obviously not unsighted as he got the call absolutely spot-on. The television replay confirms this. He (Jaco Peyper) should get credit for getting such a vital call right under serious pressure conditions.

b) There is no clear and obvious reason that the last pass was forward. I did not think so at the time and I am still of that opinion. It is a fact that the ball was knocked towards the Crusaders goal-line and that was my only concern. With Jaco's help it became clear that it was from a Crusader's hand.

The ball did touch Maku's head (twice according to you) and the last time it came off his head it brushed the Crusader hand which placed Hougaard onside. Talking of which. . . . If Hougaard was offside at all you can only establish that by fast forwarding and rewinding your PVR and then this will still end up in debate. We did not have the luxury of this at the time and had to make a decision. I believe we got that decision right.

It is also an assistant referee's duty to assist the referee and in this case Jaco got involved because he thought it more important to make the correct call rather than the incorrect one. Give us a bit of credit brother.

Good chatting to you.

Regards, Marius.
 
4. Name: Hendrik Meyer

Question: I think Marius Jonker had a very good game on Friday night. If one looks at the yellow cards and the fact that he gave a 50/50 decision (easily manipulable) to the Crusaders in the second last minute, shows that he was definitely not biased. Now I see on the Crusaders website that they are vilifying the poor man. Does this not constitute grounds for sanction?

Marius Jonker: Hi Hendrik.

Thank you for the compliment.

When you decide to become a referee there are a few reality checks to consider...

ii) You are only human and will make good and bad decisions. Hopefully more good ones than bad ones.
ii) You might lose a couple of friends in the process... you might gain some... only to lose them again.
iii) You are never going to please everyone.

People get emotional about this lovely game of ours and will get upset about certain decisions made by myself and other referees. It is a fact that had we not awarded the last try on Friday night the websites mentioned by yourself would have been a lot quieter but the other team's website would have been extremely busy. This is life, my man.

I do not know of any referee who would put his career on the line by being biased. I certainly won't. Supporters are entitled to support their teams and would obviously be upset. I try and stay away from all this negative stuff.

No sanction required. All part of the fun.

Cheers, Marius.
 
5. Name: Mark Middelhoven

Question: Two questions.

Firstly for the Bulls Crusaders game, does a pass need to be completed for it to be forward?

Secondly, coming in form the side: when a player enters "through the gate" can he still be penalised for coming in from the side?

And once having entered "through the gate" must he attempted to ruck over in line with the ball or may he clear players from the edge of the ruck as well?

Many Thanks

Marius Jonker: Hi Mark.

A forward pass (throw forward) happens when a player passes the ball towards the opposing team's dead-ball line. It need not reach another player to be forward.

If he comes through the gate he will not be penalized. He may ruck through the ruck onto the ball and may clear players around the ball in a legal manner i.e. in a manneR that is not dangerous.

Regards, Marius.

6. Name: Tienie Halgryn

Question: Volgens my waarneming was die laaste aangee vorentoe. Die speler moes om die opponent se lyf die bal uitgee en die enigste manier was vorentoe. Wat daarna gebeur het is irrelevant. Stem jy saam?

Hoe gebeur dit dat Joey Salmans nie die wegstamp van die speler in die Cheetah game optel nie. Reg voor hom. Oorkant se grens tel dit op?

Wat gaan aan met die aantal vorentoe aangee, skeef ingooi by die skrums en die oor die lyn in en afskoppe. In een wedstryd tor amper 'n meter oor die merk? Dit lyk baie slordig.

Jy kon die Crusaders voorry nog 'n paar maal gestraf het vir op die grond druk. Hoekom nie?

Groete, Tienie

Marius Jonker: Hallo Oom Tienie.

Jou eerste vraag is alreeds vroeër deur my beantwoord. Kyk asb daarna.

Joey se aandag was op iets anders gefokus en hy het hierdie geval dus nie gesien nie.

Oom was self daar en weet dat ons as skeidsregters ons bes doen om alles raak te sien en die regte besluite te neem. Ons mis van tyd tot tyd goed en werk aan ons foute. Afskoppe oor die merk lyk slordig en ek sal die woord versprei dat ons meer aandag daaraan gee.

Heeltemal korrek. Volgens reël mag die voory nie sy hand op die grond sit nie. In die tweede helfte het ek gevoel dat hierdie tegniek (alhoewel teen die reelboek) geen invloed op spel gehad het nie. In die 69ste minuut/76ste minuut moes ek egter strafskoppe aan die Bulls toegeken het want die losskop het sy hand op die grond gehou en homself daardeur versterk op 'n onwettige manier. Hier het ek fouteer. Ons werk daaraan.

Beste wense daar in George.

Marius.

› In-Touch Edition 1

› In-touch Apr09- EMAIL

› In-touch Ed2 email

› In-Touch Edition 3- EMAIL

› Intouch_Vol 4 2008

› Intouch Vol 5 2008

› Intouch Vol 6 2008