We have had a spate of questions lately, which is most pleasing. Here Mark Lawrence answers another batch.

1. Name: Stuart Knowling 

Question: Current debate about the issue of a kick off going directly into touch (in the defending team's half). Law 13.8 says that the team can have a rekick, scrum back or line out on half way. My question is, does 19.2 cover this situation for a quick throw? i.e. can the defending team take a quick throw between where the ball went out and their own goal line? To me the law is clear that the line out must be on half way but others seem to be of the opinion that the quick throw is valid. What do you think?

Mark Lawrence: Hi Stuart,

Good to hear from you again. Trust the refereeing is going well.

In my opinion the player is entitled to a quick throw in. There has been an infringement by the kickers team and the receiving team has a choice as you mentioned. In the past the teams always tried to take a quick throw in on the half way line. This is forbidden by law 19.2 (b)

Law 19.2 (b) For a quick throw-in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the place where the ball went into touch and the player’s goal line.

Law 19.2. (a), however, allows a quick throw with no limitations stipulated. Therefore as long as the receiving team is prepared to take the risk of taking the throw in from behind the place the ball went out rather than a formed line out on the half way line, that’s their choice and is at the risk of a huge territorial disadvantage. However, the crux of the matter to me is that the intention of the quick throw-in was to speed up the game. So why slow it down by forcing the team to have a formed line out!

Law 19.2 

(a) A player may take a quick throw-in without waiting for a lineout to form.

Keep well

Regards, Mark

2. Name: Maurice Markus

Question: The appointed referee arrived late and the match is already 10 minutes on it way. Can the appointed referee take charge of the match?   

Mark Lawrence: Hello Maurice,

I think law 6.A.2 REPLACING THE REFEREE answers your question. I don't think he can take charge but read the law and decide.

6.A.2 REPLACING THE REFEREE
If the referee is unable to complete the match, the referee’s replacement is appointed according to the instructions of the match organiser. If the match organiser has given no instructions, the referee appoints  the replacement. If the referee cannot do so, the home team appoints a replacement.

It has never happened to me, Maurice, so that’s all I can really answer. But is it not a case where commonsense should prevail? The game is for the players. Referees referee for the players. Would it not be best in a case like this for the decision to reside with the players? If they would be better off with the appointed referee than with the stand-in, surely it would be better for the appointed referee to take charge - and there is nothing in law, as you see, which says that the referee who starts a match must finish it.

Trust this helps

Regards, Mark

3. Name: Peter Shortell

Question: The latest IRB Ruling on hands in the "ruck" after a tackle seems to be to be saying the following: if a player has possession of the ball before a ruck forms, but it is still on the ground when the ruck forms, he does not have to let go; however other players cannot contest possession (at least while it is still on the ground). The explanation is that the ball on the ground in the Definition of a ruck is not in anybody's possession.

So if it is in somebody's possession, do we have a ruck or not?  If so, the player can presumably now pick the ball up, thus converting the ruck into a maul (if the other conditions are present), contrary to what we have all been taught in the past.  This is not spelled out.

On the other hand, if ?ball on the ground? implies nobody has possession, then surely the converse is that if somebody does have possession, we cannot have a ruck, so no offside lines, etc.

How will you apply this Ruling in practice?

Mark Lawrence: Hello Peter,

Great to hear from you again and also for your interesting question.

You make a great point .. and something I was taught as a young referee – you cannot turn a ruck into a maul!

Fortunately, I have refereed the a South African team vs Namibian President's XV with the new ruling in place, and it certainly makes it easier to referee the tackle /ruck.

In my view, if the arriving player gets his hands on the ball at a tackle, there is no offence. If players now join, and a ruck forms, why should he let go now .. he got there first and should be rewarded .. if anything the player on the ground is probably infringing by holding on!

Further more, I have it on good authority that the arriving player must actually hold the ball to benefit from the new ruling, and not just be touching the ball.

The ruck laws still apply to all other players and if the ball is lifted off the ground, then maul laws would apply .. thus there are offside lines. I think this is good for the game and complies with the charter in that rugby is for all sizes and shapes .. welcome back the shorter, stockier player with a low centre of gravity, as that is what is needed to contest at the tackle as they are difficult to clean out!

Anyway, that’s my knowledge thus far and I guess the jury is still out. Watch this space.

Keep well

Regards, Mark

4. Name: Paul Jennings

Question: Hi duty ref

To be a tackler you must bring an opponent to ground and go to ground also (1 knee). Then you release ball-carrier, roll away/get up. My question is..what rights do you have if you stay on your feet, e.g. two-man tackle, one low one high. Must you release the ball-carrier/ball?
 
PS I really enjoy the site, keep up the good work.  

Mark Lawrence: Hi Paul,

Thanks for the question and I am pleased to hear that you enjoy this site. We put a lot of work into the website and your comments make it all worth while. Thank you!

You are one of the first people that actually know the tackle law. A tackle is a player HELD and on the GROUND simultaneously.

If the tackler does not go to ground, he is not a tackler and we have a tackle without a tackler. Sounds crazy, hey!!

That player is regarded as an arriving player and therefore he has to enter the tackle through the gates. To do this, he would probably have to release the player to go back through the gates but if he can go through the gates without letting go, then he is legal.

Hope this makes sense and thanks again for the interesting question.

Regards, Mark

5. Name: George Halgryn

Question: Hi all.

Just a quick question (or not).

B&I Lions vs Southern Kings - Explain to me the reason for the penalty try from the scrum. I know that the Kings repeatedly infringed at the scrum but can the ref definitely for certain say that a try would have been scored from that move. And if it was because of the repeated infringement surely a yellow card had to be given to the offending Kings player.

I refer to the following law Law 22 () Penalty try. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored in a better position but for foul play by the defending team. 

Mark Lawrence: Hello George,

I cannot fault your law knowledge but I want to add a few things for you to consider and then see if you still disagree with the penalty try.

I think Bobby Skinstad confused a lot of people when he implied the referee must be 100% certain a try would be scored before you awarded a penalty try. This is not so. The law says if a try would PROBABLY have been scored. Probability, is 51%, as any statistician would tell you .. therefore by deduction if there is 49% doubt about a try being scored, then the referee must still give the penalty try. In my view, there should be a lot more penalty tries in the game based on probability but then I denied the Sharks a penalty try at a scrum which based on my above statements, they should have been awarded .. so I am probably the worst referee to ask about penalty tries!

Regarding the yellow card, you are quite right, the penalty try is for the try that would PROBABLY have been scored and the yellow card is for the cynical/repeated offence. If the referee is unsure as to whom in the scrum was the offender, then he cannot award a yellow card.

I think that this was the case in the above match. 

Now watch the clip again and you decide whether there is a 51% chance that the Lions would have scored? We will do a clip with the view of the IRB later.

‘Regards, Mark

6. Name Anne Nelson 

Question: The ball is kicked in general play. An opponent, with one foot in touch and one foot in the field of play attempts to catch the ball, which has not crossed the line of touch. However, he fails to catch the ball, and instead knocks it on. Would a scrum be set for the knock on, or a line-out because the player was in touch?

Mark Lawrence: Hello Anne,

Great question. The correct answer would be a scrum for the knock on because if the ball has not crossed the plane of touch, a player who is in touch may touch or knock the ball, but not hold it.

Law 19 definitions states a player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touch line.

That is why a player in touch may ground a ball lying in the in-goal, while he is in touch and score a try!

Keep well and thanks for the interesting question

Regards, Mark

7. Name: Jose Smith

Question: Please tell me what 'sacking' means.

Mark Lawrence: Hello Jose,

Yes, we are funny creatures giving funny names to describe certain actions. “Truck and trailer” is another classic explaining obstruction.

Sacking occurs at a line-out and is basically the opponent tackling the opposition player who has the ball. This must be done immediately before the maul forms.

The reason we use the word Sack is because we don't want jumpers legs tackled but rather we like to see them being dragged down.

Hope this makes sense

Regards, Mark
 

8. Name: Bunny Bolton

Question: I'm getting really confused. If experts in the cold light of day cannot agree what hope is there for referees in the heat of battle and for spectators trying to make head or tail of complicated game.

England Rugby's got a question and answer thing like yours. It's called Spread the Word.

There they talk about Willem Alberts in the Lions match when he got close to scoring a try. This is the excerpt from Spread the Word:

Q - Golden Lions v British & Irish Lions: The home side came close to scoring but the TMO ruled that the attacking player had not released the ball after being stopped short. The ref Craig Joubert (who had an excellent match) awarded the penalty to the Lions on the 5m line, 5m in from touch. 

Should it not have been where the offence took place - 1m from touch, a few centimetres from the goal line? Sophie Challen, Windsor

A - Sophie, Law 21.2 (a) states: If the place for a penalty or free kick is within five metres from the goal line, the mark for the kick is five metres from the goal line, opposite the place of infringement. So Craig Jourbert and the TMO got it spot on.

When you people dealt with it you said that it was a bit of nitpicking but in fact the penalty should have been where Alberts hung onto the ball a few centimetres from the Lions' line.

Who is right - you or them?

Mark Lawrence: Hi Bunny,

You are indeed a student of the game and probably know the laws better than all of us by now!

In case of doubt, go to the law.

Law 21.2 WHERE PENALTY AND FREE KICKS ARE TAKEN
(a) The kicker must take the penalty or free kick at the mark or anywhere behind it on a line through the mark. If the place for a penalty or free kick is within 5 metres of the opponents’ goal line, the mark for the kick is 5 metres from the goal line, opposite the place of infringement.
(b) When a penalty or free kick is awarded for an infringement in in-goal, the mark for the kick is in the field of play, 5 metres from the goal line, in line with the place of infringement.
Penalty: Any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.

It may not be as clear as we should like but opponents here refers to the opponents of the team to take the kick, in other words the attacking team. The attacking team may not have a penalty nearer to the goal-line than five metres. This would not be the case with the defending team.

If the attacking team infringers they become the opponents of the team about to take the penalty. These opponents are 99 metres from their line. The law does not require the kick to be taken five metres from the defenders' line.

Unless there is something sinister lurking behind the wording of the law.

Please, keep asking questions.

Regards, Mark