Back from the Pacific Islands and idling along before going into Tri-Nations action, Jonathan Kaplan answers readers' questions.

1. Name: Ashley Morton  

Question: Hi. I'm watching the Cheetahs vs Griquas match on the internet (legally!) from Norway at the moment, and a question popped into my head about advantage. At the end of the first half, the referee indicated that he was playing advantage. It wasn't immediately clear why (not his fault). During the time he was playing advantage, the hooter went. A phase or two later, something like 40:15 on the clock, the referee determined that advantage was not coming, and awarded a penalty for the offense that occurred at something like 39:45.  

My question: What would have happened if it had just been a knock-on? The offence occurred before the end of the half, and thus would normally have been played. However, because of the attempt to allow for advantage, time is now out, and we would not normally allow a scrum to begin, when the whistle was blown after the clock was out.

Thanks for your help!

Cheers, Ashley

 Jonathan Kaplan: Generally the advantage for knock-ons is much shorter than that for penalties. I don't think 30 seconds is overboard depending on whether the referee anticipated something happening. )otherwise it is a dead facet of play. time cannot be blown at a penalty!

2. Name: Mark Samson 

Question: Hi.

If a kick from team A is touched by a player from team B who was trying to charge it down, and the ball goes to the fullback from team B who is in his 22m, can he kick straight out or has the ball been carried back in by his own player who touched it?

Cheers, Mark

Jonathan Kaplan: He cannot kick directly out as is player attempted to play the ball and in doing so it landed back in his own 22m area.

3. Name: John Fourie

Question: Read Craig's response to Bolton's question in the previous Duty Ref. Abusewise, was it worse at club level or is it worse at international level? Obviously on international level, the scale of abuse is greater, but so is the distance, or do I have it wrong. 

I am a referee at club level and we do suffer huge amounts of abuse, but I have often thanked my lucky stars that we do not have video cameras at our games. Oh, the consequences...

[Question to Craig Joubert and his answer:

4. Name Bunny Bolton

Question: Why do you do it? You are obviously a man who could hold down a top job. What makes you referee, especially in South Africa where people are so rude to referees?

Craig Joubert: Hi Bunny,

I was in Corporate Banking before, Mark Lawrence still has a number of optometry businesses, Marius Jonker is a top legal brain at Bell Equipment and Jonathan Kaplan was a partner in a successful transport company prior to turning to full-time refereeing. Each of us could pursue these careers at the expense of being involved in rugby if we wanted to but we referee because we love it. Sometimes the abuse and criticism is hard to swallow but the satisfaction we get out of being involved in and contributing to what are sometimes remarkable games of rugby make it all worthwhile. Not a day goes by that I would rather be back in the corporate world at the expense of being involved in this wonderful game of ours.

Cheers, Craig]

Jonathan Kaplan: My feeling is that it is much worse at club level as often the perpetrators are not brought to book.. especially in SA, where some club rugby still does not value the safety of officials as it should do. Generally there is too much pressure on international professional players for them to be abusive to match officials. Generally our abuse comes through the press, either through talk radio where every man and his dog has a say, even if he is an ignoramus (!) .. and through the opinions, which are often more misleading for the public, of these so-called experts, who were ex-players back in the day...
 
4. Name: Phil Challen

Question: IRB Ruling 4/2009, giving enhanced rights at the breakdown to the first player who gets hands on the ball, seems to have made very little difference to televised rugby - at least from the casual viewer's perspective. Have top-level referees changed their approach to implement the ruling, or did it in effect codify existing practice?  

[IRB Ruling 4/2009:

Law 15 6 (b) states: After a tackle any players on their feet may attempt to gain possession by taking the ball from the ball carriers possession.
Law 16.1 (b) states: How can a ruck form? Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent. The ball is on the ground.
Law 16.4 (b) states: (b) Players must not handle the ball in a ruck.

When a player has complied with Law 15 6 (b), is on his feet and playing the ball after a tackle and is then joined by an opposition player on his feet so that the situation outlined in 16 1 (b) occurs, can the player who has complied with Law 15 6 (b) continue to play the ball with his hands or at what point does he have to release the ball?

This does not appear to be covered by Law.

Ruling

Law 15 6 (a) states: After a tackle, all other players must be on their feet when they play the ball........
Law 15.6 (b) reads: After a tackle any player on their feet may attempt to gain possession by taking the ball from the ball-carrier's possession.
Law 15 5 (e) states that: If opposition players who are on their feet, the tackled player must release the ball.

This indicates that after a tackle a player on his feet may play the ball.

Law 16 1 (b) states: How can a ruck form? Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent. The ball is on the ground.
Law 16.1 refers to a player from each side in physical contact over the ball and implies that the ball is not in the possession of any player.

Providing a player from either side on their feet after a tackle comply with all aspects of Law 15 and have the ball in their hands prior to contact with an opposition player on his feet those players may continue with possession of the ball even if a player from the opposition makes contact with those players in possession of the ball.

Any other players joining the two players contesting the ball must not handle the ball in accordance with Law 16.4 (b). If the ball is not in possession of any player after a tackle and a ruck is formed players may not use their hands in accordance with Law 16.4 (b).

The Ruling is effective from May 23 for the start of matches in the June window and after the close of any domestic or cross border competitions.]

Jonathan Kaplan: I think it has had a marked difference with some crucial penalties going in favour of players who have lower centres of gravity or are able to compete for the ball better than others. Teams must now find the balance between tall timber and those adept at either slowing the opposition ball down, or even better, stealing it. In essence the change was brought in to help the players and referees to find a more black and white situation (i.e. player who arrives first on his feet may contest the ball as long as he stays on is feet, whereas often rucks were called which were not!). There are still penalties blown for players who arrive late and then attempt to steal the ball when a ruck has been formed.

Good question though!