Jaco Peyper continues to answer readers' questions as the matches rage on in the Northern Hemisphere.

1. Name: Dirk Meyer 

Question: Hi Jaco,

Me again. Please clarify the laws of cleaning out at the breakdown, specifically with reference to Schalk Burger's clean out and subsequent penalty near the Scottish try-line on Saturday. Law 15.7 (d) says a player will be penalised when falling on or over the tackled player with the ball near them. If so, the referee on Saturday was 100% correct and every single referee in the southern Hemisphere is incorrect. A bold statement? Maybe, but I do not ever see referees blow this during the Super 14, the Tri-Nations or the Currie Cup. The only time it is blown is when the player comes in and falls on the ball killing it, but not when players fall over. We, as the fans, want consistency, and then referees will get less abuse. Agree?  

Jaco Peyper: Hi Dirk, good to chat again!

Yes the referee was quite correct in terms of law. The tackle law must be read and interpreted uniformly and not in isolation per subsection though.

Referees were ordered by the IRB before the November test window and European Competitions to be very strict on applying the law on players going off their feet, therefore maybe the perception that the Northern Hemisphere referees are more visibly vigilant on penalising those players. I would say it is more of a reactive occurrence to the IRB directive than a trademark of Northern Hemisphere refereeing. Within the next couple of weeks the Southern Hemisphere referees will follow suit and even be more consistent in doing so when they handle tests and Super 14 etc. (SA Referees have actually already started doing so under the leadership of André Watson in Currie Cup 2008.)

Sometimes I think it is dangerous to just blow the game to pieces by technical law application, and the 'top Referee’ will probably be able to determine whether the action had a material influence on play and rather manage it than blow it when it had no effect on the game considering below: 

Why do we want to penalise the players going down on tackled/other players?

i. Dangerous – injuries can be the result of players diving onto a defenseless player on the deck

ii. If a player land on top of a defender it means that specific defender will get back to his feet much slower and will not be able to compete for possession or fold into defense to plug a hole for 2nd/3rd phase of attack.

Let me know your thoughts on the materiality aspect.

Jaco

2. Name: Jan van der Merwe 

Question: As twee spelers mekaar slaan, teen watter span moet die strafskop gaan? Teen die speler wat eerste geslaan het, of teen die speler wat weerwraak geneem het?

Jaco Peyper: Jan 

Ek neem aan die twee spelers is van opponerende spanne. 

Die reëltoepassing het ‘n jaar terug verander, wat ek glo meer regverdig is.

Vandag gaan die strafskop teen die speler wat eerste geslaan het, solank die geslaande speler gereageer het met dieselfde/minder graad van geweld. Indien beide vuishoue geslaan het, behoort beide dus geelkaarte te kry vir hul vuilspel, maar strafskop teen speler wat als begin het.

Indien speler A net vir B stamp en B staan op en hom met vuis bydam, sal B gestraf en gekaart word omdat hy met groter graad geweld/oortreding as ‘n stamp/stoot reageer het.

Groete 

NB Jan asked who gets penalised if two players are punching each other. Jaco says that the penalty now goes against the player who hit first provided that the punched player responds with more or less the same degree of violence. If both punched, both should be sent off temporarily.

3. Name: Bunny Bolton

Question: You'll probably have a clip of it, but where does it say that a penalty try must be followed by a yellow card? 

And why no yellow card or talking to with the TWO yellow cards in the Welsh match?

Jaco Peyper:  Hi Bunny

Condensed Definition of Penalty try: Law 10 Foul Play: A penalty try must be awarded if a foul play (Unfair play & intentionally offending Law 10.2, Repeated infringement Law 10.3) offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored or scored in a better position.

Therefore I am pretty convinced that an act of foul play of such a nature will have deserved the yellow card on its own, and that the penalty try is merely awarded in the place of the try that would probably have been scored. The penalty try is not punishment – just awarding the team their try they would have scored anyway, and the yellow card is a sanction for foul play.

However I can't imagine a yellow card in all given scenarios at a penalty try, for instance the front row collapses just before a push over try and you can't determine the culprit. Would  you send of the whole front row off? No only the player you can accurately identify as the offender causing the collapse preventing the probable try.

Hope this helps

Jaco

4. Name: George Braithwaite

Question: I have again listened to the South African coach complaining about the referee. Are South Africans the biggest whingers in the rugby world? Do they believe that the world's referees have formed a conspiracy against them? Are they paranoid?

Jaco Peyper: George

South Africans not only the Boks, but schools, clubs, etc also tend to whine a lot about referees and blaming them for their performances and results. Referees do have a significant influence on the game and in the odd game the result, but why do they not rather refer to their own ill discipline when they drop a ball with open try line or diving into tackles 5m from scoring?

I must say that at provincial level I have met with a couple of great coaches who really are mature and never blame the referee for honest mistakes and acknowledge that their players make more mistakes than the referee.

Then on the other hand I have met a couple who believe/perceive that referees have preconceived agenda in nailing them. It is so sad, but it is very hard to change this perception.

Name: Jaco Erasmus

Question: Hi.

Just firstly want to say well done one the job you guys do in this web site. Learn a lot from here.
Now my question: On your site where the video clip (Right or Wrong part) are, there was a clip of the Currie Cup Finale. It was where the Bulls fly have kick the ball just outside of his 22m. The ball would have bounce in field of play, but near the touch line. One of the Sharks players jump up in the air and caught the ball and then ended out of play. The ref ruled it as kick out on the full, so line-out for the Sharks, where the Bulls kicker kick.

On the weekend, the game Italy vs. Argentina the Italian fly half took a 22m restart and kick it long and towards the touch line. It would have bounce in field of play. The Argentina wing did the same as the Sharks player. He jump up and caught the ball in the air and ended out of play. Following the previous example it should be line-out on the 22m or scrum for Argentina. The ref ruled it as line out for Argentina where the wing too

Jaco Peyper:  Hi

Thanks for the compliment – that is exactly what we are trying to achieve, and learn in the process ourselves.

My view: If the player catches the ball before it has crossed the plane of touch and no part of his body is in touch yet [example an anchored foot outside touch line] he then carries the ball into touch as it was not yet. Thus my answer different to all above and it is that it should be the kickers Line-out were the catcher took the ball it from infield into touch.

If the ball had already crossed the plane of touch it is different as the ball was already directly in touch before the catch and the jumper did not take it out.

It is also different when a player puts his foot in touch when a rolling ball / ball travelling in air comes towards him, he is then already in touch and by catching that moving ball [not picking up stationary ball in- field] regardless whether it has changed the plane of touch is the out of the kickers foot and not taken out by the catcher.

Hope this makes sense!

Cheers

Jaco

6. Name: Allan Danker

Question:  Cleaning up  e.g. taking an opponent out in a ruck or maul in my opinion is illegal.

Where in the law book do you find it that this can be done other than dragging a player lying in close proximity to the ball in a ruck?

Jaco Peyper: Hi Allan

Players are allowed to clear out an opponent who is approaching and near the ball at a tackle. Law 15.7 (e). We have simplified the concept of “near the ball” to 1 metre radius from the ball to make it easier to adjudicate.

You are correct in your statement regarding rucks (Law 16.2 (b)) and mauls (Law 17.4 (c)) as players joining these phases must bind onto a team-mate from behind the hindmost foot in an on-side position.

Therefore before the ruck/maul is formed, you can clear out opponents within 1 metre approaching the ball by using your arms and without playing dangerously or using foul play.

Regards - Jaco

Law 15.7 (e) Players on their feet must not charge or obstruct an opponent who is not near the ball.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

Law 16.2 (b) A player joining a ruck must bind onto the ruck with at least one arm around the body of a team mate, using the whole arm.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

Law 17.4 (c) Players joining the maul. Players joining a maul must do from behind the foot of the hindmost team mate in the maul. The player may join alongside this player. If the player joins the maul from the opponents’ side, or in front of the hindmost team-mate, the player is offside.
Penalty: Penalty Kick on the offending team’s offside line