Mark Lawrence has had a busy time of late answering readers' questions. We shall be giving him a rest.   
 
1. Name: Johan Meintjies   
 
Question: Hi Mark.  
 
When a player goes to ground with the ball, may a player from the same team either fall onto his players sealing the ball off, or may he go past his teammate and shield the ball from any opposing players to get to the ball. I have now seen in quite a few games that this is done and it just doesn't seem right. I know that you may not dive over the ball when a ruck is formed. 
 
Another things is that when a player kicks the ball, and it is not going to go out, a player from the opposing team puts one foot out and catches the ball in field. Why is the line-out given to the team that according to me has in actual fact taken the ball out.
 
Kind regards, Johan.  
 
Mark Lawrence: Hi Johan,
 
Question 1, regarding sealing off. This is taboo as it prevents a contest for the ball. In the past, we allowed the attacking team to go to ground to seal off the ball as this was easy to referee and created flow. The flow was artificial as no defender could contest the ball because of the sealing off by the attacking player and thus he would fan out and defend. The attackers would thus have a wall of defenders in front of them at all times. By keeping the attacking players on their feet when they arrive at a tackle still gives the defenders the opportunity to contest for the ball, by joining the ruck to “counter” ruck the attackers off the ball. For an arriving player, who is running with some pace to get to the ball, to stop on a “sixpence” as he gets to the ball defies physics! It may take a metre to stop if he has got there first and there is no defender he can collide with. The accepted mode of play is to allow him to take a step beyond the ball but he must stay on his feet. He is not guilty of obstruction (a ruck is two players in contact CLOSING AROUND the ball!), and can easily be counter-rucked away. This way there is always a contest whereas with sealing off there is No contest for possession.
 
Hope this makes sense
 
Question 2 is just a matter of law. Read Law 19 definitions The ball is touch when it is not being carried (i.e. a kick) by a player and it touches the touch line or anything or ANYONE on or beyond the touch line.

Law 19 DEFINITIONS
The ball is in touch if a player catches the ball and that player has a foot on the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline. If a player has one foot in the field of play and one foot in touch and holds the ball, the ball is in touch.
 
By deduction then, the kicker has kicked the ball directly into touch as the catcher is in touch by having ONE foot in touch.
 
Easy stuff hey!
 
Regards,  Mark
 
2. Name: Andrew Illingworth
 
Question: During a game, the referee consults with his assistants constantly.  Does it ever happen that another third party might influence the refs interpretation, like for instance at half time or from the TMO whispering something in the refs ear about something he might be missing?
 
Mark Lawrence: Hello Andrew,
 
There is nothing sinister about a referee consulting with his team to ensure fairness in a game. That is why touch judges are now called assistant referees. To assist the referee!

Interestingly, there are about nine match officials running a big game. 1) referee, 2) assistant referee 1 and reserve referee,  3) assistant referee 2, 4) No.4 sub controller and reserve assistant referee, 5)  No.5 sub controller, 6) Notional analyst, 7) time keeper, 8) TMO, 9) assessor/selector or referee coach, 10) water carrier. Don't laugh .. players get water regularly. How can the referee leave the field for water during a game?
 
Go well.
 
Regards,  Mark 
 
3. Name: Andrew Illingworth 
 
Question: I have a supplementary question I would like an international referee to address please. 

My understanding is that once a penalty is awarded the penalty is to be taken within one minute.  Everything else is closely watched and policed from the time in the sin bin to TMO verdicts, why isn't there a system which is technically quite possible for the referee to be told when the minute is up.  Penalties for all sorts of reasons are a frustration but when the kicker removes his scrum cap debates the kick has a swig of lucky water, tees up the ball time and again much more then a minute is allowed to elapse, I don't think in recent times I have ever seen a referee say that is it you have had your minute?
 
Mark Lawrence: Hello Andrew
 
It does seem to take a long time but why don't you time this yourself as you will see a minute is quite long really and most players kick  well within this limitation.
 
Just remember though Law 9.B.1 (e) states that the kicker must take the kick within one minute from the time the kicker has indicated an intention to kick. The intention to kick is signaled BY THE ARRIVAL OF THE KICKING TEE.
 
Law 9.B.1 (e) The kicker must take the kick within one minute from the time the kicker has indicated an intention to kick. The intention to kick is signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or the player makes a mark on the ground. The player must complete the kick within the minute even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again.
Penalty: The kick is disallowed if the kicker does not take the kick within the time allowed.
 
Let me know you results. 
 
Kind Regards,  Mark
 
4. Name: Morné Simpson
 
Question: Is the opposing team allowed to collapse the maul after a line out. As in the weekends game between SA and the Lions it seemed silly for the lions not to collapse the rolling maul as SA were driving them back 30 to 40 metres.
 
Mark Lawrence: Hello Morné,
 
No maul may be collapsed as of  June 2009. However, if an opponent at a line-out can bring the opposition ball-catcher to ground before the maul forms, this is fine and is commonly referred to as “sacking” A maul would require the ball-carrier and one player from each team to bind. The act of sacking is not seen as forming a maul as long as it occurs immediately. If this player cannot bring the opponent to ground immediately then the referee will rule that a maul now exists as the definition of the maul is now met.
 
Thanks for the question
 
Regards, Mark
 
5. Name: John Freter  
 
Question: Referring to the first test against the Lions, please would you explain why Bryce Lawrence opted for a 22 metre drop-out when, having crossed the goal line, Ugo Moyne' effort to ground the ball were frustrated by Jean de Villiers? 
 
Mark Lawrence: Hello John,
 
The answer is simple really. Red took the ball into the in-goal. He failed to ground it. Green then caused the ball to go touch –in –goal. That equates to a 22m drop-out as per law 22.7 (a).

Law 22.7 RESTARTING AFTER A TOUCH DOWN
(a) When an attacking player sends or carries the ball into the opponents’ in-goal and it becomes dead there, either because a defender grounded it or because it went into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, a drop-out is awarded.
 
Regards Mark
 
6. Name: John Freter 
 
Question: Having rewatched Saturday's test match, I wonder why the Beast was allowed to close the head gap and deny Vickery a place to engage, or swing out and round and run the Lions' front row sideways and then simply step left and drive under and through Vickery's arm and shoulder, none of which is legal? What training do elite referees receive in matters of front row play?  Do players have the right to be protected by the referee in such circumstances? What is the legal situation in South Africa if, say as a result of unpenalised/unnoticed lifting in the front row, a player suffers serious injury, is the referee culpable in the courts, as is the case in the UK?      

Mark Lawrence: You are obviously trying to make a point rather than ask a question.

Let me say simply that all top referees spend a lot of time at courses on scrummaging with experts, at practice with teams and in conversation with experts in the persons of top props. But then you probably know that.

Law 20 tells you what props must and must not do, but I suspect that you know all of that. 
 
7. Name: Peter Shortell
 
Question: My understanding is that when the ball is in in-goal it is 'held up' only if the referee blows his whistle before the ball goes dead otherwise.  The TMO cannot blow the whistle.  However when Ugo Monye failed to score in the first Lions Test, Christophe Berdos was convinced it should be a 5-metre scrum to Red, whereas Bryce Lawrence decided on a 22 drop out.
 
I have a theory that might explain the problem.  I know that the TMO only gets sound from the referee.  Moreover slow motion replays do not have sound at all.  When the replay technicians supply footage, do they have to remove the sound track?  If so, Berdos could have mistakenly believed he had heard the whistle blown earlier than in fact it was., which would explain his decision.  Do you know his actual rationale? 
 
Unfortunately his English was not up to the debate. Obviously the IRB must make interpreters available for such emergencies.   
 
Mark Lawrence: Hello Peter,
 
You make an interesting point. It is quite feasible that the scenario you sketch actually happened. I would have to ask Christophe though as I do not know what was the real rationale behind his decision. If time allows I will ask him on Saturday (after his match) and let you know
 
I like the way you think though. 
 
Keep well
 
Kind regards, Mark

7. Name: Naas Ferreira

Question:  I refer to questions by Peter Shortell where the reply in one aspect was not clear.
 
If a player is on the ground and in possession of the ball a ruck cannot be formed even if the ball touches the ground . Can you please comment comply. 
 
Mark Lawrence: Hello Naas,
 
I am not sure where you got that info. My latest answer to Peter is copied below 
 
"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 South African XV vs Namibian 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 any thing 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." 
 
Interestingly, at a high performance meeting with the IRB yesterday, it has been stated that the player arriving at a tackle can be touching or holding the ball to benefit from the latest ruck ruling. So that needs correcting in the above answer to Peter. 
 
Trust this is clear now
 
Regards, Mark