Jonathan Kaplan is the world's most experienced referee. We are most fortunate that he is answering readers' questions.

1. Name: Donal Treacy

Question: Duty Ref,

Firstly thanks for the service.

I just had a question with regards to languages and preventative refereeing. As international referees who come from a nation with 11 languages I am sure you have all given this some thought at one point. Do you feel that there is an onus on international referees to learn certain basic phrases in French, Spanish, etc, if they are going to referee these teams?

I don't think that these teams fully understand the referee shouting "no hands", "hindmost foot, please, No.6", "don't touch" and as a result give away a lot of penalties. Rolland for example uses French during the games to say things like that and uses preventative refereeing and France usually have a lower penalty count as a result. I have refereed last year in Uni in Germany and found when using English over German. This summer I refereed Benetton Treviso. Only two spoke English. Nightmare!

Refereeing is about preventing as much as penalising offenses. Is this something you would combat?

Jonathan Kaplan: This is a good question and a long held view. It is a moot point whether non-English speaking players prefer English or an effort in their language. In my experience, simple English terminology was preferred & requested. The players in the upper tiers are usually seasoned professionals and are accustomed to standard terms. I think one can overplay the importance of language here, but it is certainly worthy of debate!

2. Name: Altus Neethling

Question: I just want to know in the game against the Cheetahs vs Western Province the referee awarded a five meter scrum after the cheetah scrumhalf passes the ball back into the in-goal area the flyhalf's kick was charged down and a cheetah player caught the ball in the in goal after the ball was touched by an Western Province player. I just want to know whether it is a correct decision because according to me it is a 22-metre drop out. I would appreciate it if you can come back to me as soon as possible. Thank you.

Jonathan Kaplan: From memory I believe the decision was correct. The cheetah player took the ball back into his 22m area and the place of charge down was in the in goal area. therefore it is a 5m scrum. If the charge down had happened in the 22m area then it would have been a 22m drop out.

NB. There is a clip of the incident on the website.

3. Name: Matthew Holoway

Question: Hello. As captain of a team abroad I find this site really useful and helpful. Thank you.

I'm a forward and having read the law book a few times (with great difficulty) I still battle to understand when the mark for a penalty is on the 5m from touch and when it isn't. Same applies for penalties that are closer than 5m to the goal line. Can you please shed some light where the mark is for penalties that are near touch and near the goal line? From what I understand some marks differ depending on the penalty. Please help this forward to help his team!

Take care and all the best to you. 

Jonathan Kaplan: The penalty is at the place of infringement unless there has been a kick ahead and foul play takes place where the penalty would be 15m in from touch.

4. Name: Brendan Cheyne

Question: During Saturday's test Boks vs All Blacks the Boks made good use of the rolling mall, however I noticed a couple of occasions where rather than feeding the ball back to another bound player the ball carrier himself moved back through' the maul to be last man. In doing so surely he must have become unbound. Is this legal? Thanks!

Jonathan Kaplan: Good point. The ball is shipped back in most maul situations, not only involving the Boks. As long as the ball-carrier is bound at some stage to a team-mate, it is ok. It is sometimes tough to see whether the ball-carrier has actually detached or merely slid back whilst continually binding.