Fresh from refereeing the match between the Lions and Western Province at Newlands, Mark Lawrence answers a host of readers' questions.

1. Name: Hendri Greyling

Question: Hi.

My name is Hendri Greyling and I am a Western Province referee and I plan to become a top South African referee in the future.

My question is very simple. I see it everyday in international rugby, as well as the Super 14, and it happened a lot in the British lions and Western Province game. It concerns the maul. If there is a maul. Team A is carrying the ball. The ball carrier is at the back of the maul. How can it be allowed that players from team A joining the maul is allowed to move in front of the ball carrier. In my opinion that is immediate obstruction. If you join the maul you must do so from behind binding on the last players in the maul. Why then does a lot of top referees allow players to bind onto the maul moving in front of the player carrying the ball.

Kind regards, Hendri Greyling

Mark Lawrence: Hello Hendri,

Thanks for the question and I wish you well on you journey as referee. Maybe you, just as I, decided to referee to fix the wrongs of the then top referees!

Regarding the maul... if players join behind the hindmost player (as you state) then the maul would one long line of players, all in single file!!!!!!!

Think about your view .. I have the ball, you bind behind me. The next player binds behind you. The next binds behind him! That would make a long line and a very unusual maul.

Law 17.4 (c) Players joining the maul. Players joining a maul must do so 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

So players are allowed to join alongside the hindmost player. Now assuming the hind most player has the ball and a team joins alongside him with the speed and intensity of international rugby .. it is logical that his impact will generate him ahead of the ball carrier  . add to this he current trend, that is for the ball carrier to pull back behind these players while remaining bound, which is also not illegal, and VOILA .. you have the scenario you sketch and that you want to penalise for obstruction. PLEASE don't! Mauling is similar to scrumming where 2 teams push each other towards the goal lines. When the ball is at the back of a scrum you don't penalise the props for obstruction.

Trust this is clear to you and will help you on the road to a fantastic international career.

Regards, Mark

2. Name: Andy Porter

Question: In the recent Lions game, Jonathan Kaplan penalised the Lions scrum during the first half when the TV showed the opposition prop was loosing his footing. Later in the game Kaplan come around and was able to see this for himself and the decisions for the most part went the Lions way.

I understand that Kaplan couldn't have seen the problem from the other side of the scrum however what may have stopped the Assistant ref from letting him know what was going on. I would have thought with the amount going on at the scrum any help would be welcome.

Great website.

Cheers, Andy.

Mark Lawrence: Hi Andy,

The question of the role of the assistant referee has been much debated. He can assist in any way but is under the control of the referee. Top referees often have specific instructions for AR’s depending on the game. At scrum time, for example, he may say to the assistant referee to feed him information e.g.” #1 NO BINDING” but that is only to alert the referee where he then may warn the player or to come to that side of the scrum to see for himself if it happens again.

Other referees may tell the assistant referee to give the call and will penalise on that call. This puts a lot of pressure on the  assistant referee ! So referees will decide on which pre match option they want fro the  assistant referee, depending on the  assistant referee’s experience and scrum knowledge.

This is to ensure that when we as referees do penalise at scrum time, it must be 100% correct… because if there is doubt, we would rather reset the scrum than penalise the wrong team.

Hope that gives you some insight into what referees try to achieve. Thanks also for appreciating our website.. makes our efforts on it worthy while.

Regards, Mark

3. Name: Kevin  Richardson

Question: Why are the British and Irish Lions allowed to dive on the ball at rucks, as on the weekend, but you penalised the local teams for the same transgression.

Secondly, at the breakdowns, the Lions "clean out" even the players not involved in what is then a ruck. Does the opposition not have a fair chance at the ball?      

Mark Lawrence: Evening Kevin,

I can't thank you for the question as you are basically calling me a cheat, which is a cheap shot and really equates to a lack of law knowledge and insight into the game on your part.

Firstly your comments are inaccurate and biased to Western Province,  which I can understand as you are obviously a Province supporter, and in your eyes they can do no wrong and the British and Irish Lions can do no right.

Now that we have both got these things off our chests, lets move to the civil aspect and look at fact and law.

Below are the stats from rugby365, which show that at the tackle (where you felt Western Province were done in) Western Province were penalised 6 times and Lions 5 times.

This does not gel with your statement that Western Province were penalised and the Lions not.

British and Irish Lions vs Western Province

Penalties conceded: 22

British and Irish Lions: 11
Western Province: 11

Reasons for the penalties:

British and Irish Lions:
Tackle: 5 (Vickery, Martyn Williams* 2, Monye, Sheridan)
Offside: 2 (Ellis, Worsley?*)
Discipline: 4 (Kearney - high tackle; Powell - obstruction; Sheridan* - collapsing maul; Powell - swinging arm)

Western Province:
Tackle: 6 (Louw 4, Vermeulen 2)
Offside: 1 (Liebenberg*)
Scrum: 3 (Blaauw*, Moller* 2)
Discipline: 1 (Bobo - high tackle)

Now on the point of  cleaning out and diving in .. the current trend of a “low clean out” versus “sealing off” is the issue clouding your judgment.

If a player arrives at a tackle and goes low to remove the tackler (who is lying on a tackled player and is about two feet off the ground) the player won't be penalised for going off his feet. This is the only way teams can remove players because we do not allow players to be rucked any more. “Sealing off” however is where an arriving player goes off his feet (normally head on the ground and bridging over the ball) to prevent the opponents from getting to the ball. That is penalisable. 

I hope you can now distinguish which actions of an arriving player are legal and illegal.

Now don't be offended .. I also called a referee a cheat once and he challenged me to a law exam. He passed with 90% and I got 39%. That’s why I started refereeing.

Refereeing is not rugby. It is the LAW in action and really is a game within the game rugby. That is why he knew more than me.

Why not try and write an exam and see how you do? I can promise you that you will enjoy watching rugby more once you know the laws better

Keep supporting your team, my friend. They were awesome last Saturday!

Regards, Mark

4. Name: Derek Summers

Question: If a player carrying the ball slides in the try zone, similar to a feet first baseball slide, and his right forearm touches the ground separating the ground and the ball what happens?  He is not tackled nor is there an opponent even near him in the try zone, so does this count as the ball being grounded or does play continue?

Mark Lawrence: Hi Derek,

I have quoted the law on grounding for you below but in short play would continue as the ball has not been grounded.

Law 22.1 GROUNDING THE BALL

There are two ways a player can ground the ball:
(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.
(b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive.

Regards, Mark

5. Name: Erwin Law

Question: Good day

What, if any, would be the sanction towards both a coach and a team if the coach takes his team off the field and refuses to allow the match to continue because he is of the opinion that the match has become too violent and, again in his opinion, the official has no control.

Regards, Erwin Law 

Mark Lawrence: Hello Erwin,

This would be a matter for the union under whose jurisdiction the match is played. What I can tell you is that in rugby, the referee is the sole judge of fact and law and you have to accept the decisions of the referee of the day.

That’s about all I can tell you

Regards, Mark

6. Name: Morgan Davies

Question: Are Assistant Referees allowed to assist the referee with regards to in-goal matters (i.e. if a ball has been grounded for a try or if the ball has gone into touch in-goal) or is this solely the referees/TMO responsibility?

Mark Lawrence: Hi Morgan,

The primary duty of the assistant referee is to assist with touch and touch-in-goal. He is also the first person we consult before going to the TMO.

So the answer to your question is Yes and that is one of the reasons he is now called assistant ref rather than touch judge.

Keep well

Regards, Mark

7. Name: Michael Greenway

Question: When is a yellow card given---for dangerous play or for more than that?

Mark Lawrence: Hi Michael,

Thanks for your question. Unfortunately there is no short and simple answer to your question as what is foul play to you may not be seen to be so by me.

A classic example occurred a few years ago at a SANZAR meeting where referees, coaches and citing officers under went a calibration test.

We were shown clips of tackles and had to rate them from PLAY ON, PENALTY KICK, PENALTY KICK and Yellow card, PENALTY KICK and Red card.

The difference between the three groups was massive. In some clips, of so called dangerous play, coaches were calling PLAY ON while citing officers were issuing RED.

The reasons we discovered for the difference were that coaches were ex-players and use to tough play that citing officers were not use to. Some citing officers were lawyers and applied civil law standards to a rugby situation which quite frankly while tolerated in rugby would not be tolerated in normal work environment.

Law 10.5 SANCTIONS
(a) Any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play Law must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended, or sent-off.
(b) A player who has been cautioned and temporarily suspended who then commits a second cautionable offence within the Foul Play Law must be sent-off. 

The referee therefore has a few tools in his tool box to deal with foul play, from warning (admonishing), penalizing, yellow carding and red carding and I guess the better referees will use these tools to assists the game rather than destroy it.

Thanks again for your interesting question

Regards, Mark