It's a busy time for referees as the Currie Cup sharpens up but Mark Lawrence takes time to answer readers' questions.

1. Name: Ron Whytock

Question: Please clarify the putting in of the ball into a scrum.

Scrumhalves put the ball blatantly under their own side's feet, and only very occasionally  does a ref penalises them.

I am under clearly the wrong impression that the ball is supposed to go in straight. Otherwise what is the purpose of the scrum? Why not just give them the ball to restart play with?

NOONE THAT I HAVE ASKED THIS QUESTION  HAS BEEN ABLE TO ANSWER ME CLEARLY.

Thanks

Mark Lawrence: Hi Ron,

I will not only attempt to answer you clearly but also transparently for you to understand the position we are in.

The ball must be thrown” straight” in the scrum. The reason is to ensure there is a contest for the ball. We are all for this!

The problem, Ron, is that there are 72 possible infringements at a scrum. To see all of them at any given moment is humanly impossible. So when problems arise at a scrum, our focus is often on those infringements, to try and get them sorted out, before we can focus on the straight throw. Hence players often take advantage of this and get away with a crooked feed.

There is also a huge safety issue. The “hit” which is the term front rowers use when they engage and the subsequent binding by all the front rowers is the main focus of the referee’s attention. A mistake here can result in a broken neck. And need I say it, one broken neck is one too many. Nevertheless, this safety issue often takes precedence over the technical infringement of a crooked feed and only once the referee feels he has got the safety issues under control will he now shift his focus to the feed. 

30 years ago, the players controlled the engagement and “fought for the head” The ref judged the feed. Then the laws changed and the referee called “engage”. Over the years it changed to hold and engage. Now it is a four-step process. This was introduced for player safety. The point is can you now see how busy a referee is prior to the feed compared to the old days?

Now, it is not all doom and gloom. We are working hard to give straight feeds priority. It is an IRB directive to referees to ensure the contest and we put pressure on scrumhalves before the game and during the game by constantly reminding them to feed the ball credibly. So we will change player behaviour by using management and punitive measures to ensure a contest at the scrum. Stats are looking positive as we start getting a few heels against the heads, but the jury is still out there. 

I hope you have a little insight now into the complexities of refereeing the scrum and the crooked feed.

Regards, Mark

2. Name: Alistair Archibald 

Question: Hi, pardon the ignorant question but I'm a stickler for detail!

The ruck and maul laws give definitions of what a ruck and a maul are, and concludes, "Open play is over". Law 11 refers to "Onside and offside in general play." Is general play the same as open play or is there a subtle variation? I believe they're one and the same thing but wonder why a law book would be inconsistent in their terminology. If they do mean exactly the same thing, would you say open/general play could be defined as any play that is not part of a set-piece? Thanks for your time.            

Mark Lawrence: Hi Alistair,

Oooooh, I think that is a technical question for the laws committee of the IRB. My two cents' worth would be to say they are one and the same. Much like saying a feed is either not straight or crooked. Same thing. If you can find a subtle variation, however, please let us know.

Keep well

Regards, Mark

3. Name: Johny Stavrinou 

Question: Dear Sir, 

Greeting from Cyprus and congratulations on a fantastic website.  

We, the Rugby community in Cyprus, use the referees' site as a tool for education and thus far it has been extremely useful and assisted us in our education and progression.  

With regards to the info posted on the site, I kindly request you assistance in clarifying the info you provide in Video 12 “No  Maul”

IRB Ruling: 4 of 2008 

The RFU has requested a ruling relating to Law 17

A maul is formed with Team A pushing their opponents (Team B) back towards their own goal line with the ball being clearly visible at the rear of the maul, all the defending side (Team B) bound to the maul voluntarily exit the maul, has the maul successfully concluded or is the maul still active?

The Designated Members have ruled the following in answer to the question raised:

The maul has not successfully concluded and it is not still active.

As the players of the team not in possession have all left the maul the maul ceases to exist and has not ended successfully or unsuccessfully as determined by the definition of a maul.

The maul has ceased to exist and the ball is now in open play and the relevant Laws apply.

So far I'm fine till this point, but in the 2009 Law Book section 17.4 (f) it states:  When players of the team who are not in possession of the ball in the maul voluntarily leave the maul such that there are no players of that team left in the maul, the maul may continue and there are two offside lines. The offside line for the team in possession runs through the hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the maul and for the team not in possession it is a line that runs through the foremost foot of the foremost player of the team in possession at the maul.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

The Law ruling states that in the event the team not in possession of the ball leaves the Maul then the Maul has ceased to exist and open play has commenced, but using the same scenario Law 17.4 (f) states that the Maul continues (with all its Laws) with offside lines. 

Could you please clarify?

Respectfully, Johny Stavrinou

Mark Lawrence: Hi Johny,

We are pleased to hear that you find this website helpful. Please send our best wishes to all the referees in Cyprus.

Now to answer your question.

The problem with all the opposition players leaving the maul,  is that it leaves only one team bound to each other with the ball normally moved to the hindmost player. This no longer meets the definition of a maul and thus it can't be a maul.  This so-called maul, however, also has not ended the way the current law intended in law 17.5 and law 17.6 

Law 17.5 SUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL
A maul ends successfully when the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul. A maul
ends successfully when the ball is on the ground, or is on or over the goal line.

17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL
(a) A maul ends unsuccessfully if it remains stationary or has stopped moving forward for longer than 5 seconds and a scrum is ordered.
(b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of foul play) and a scrum is ordered.
 
So the maul hasn't ended successfully or unsuccessfully; it just ceases to exist. Law 17.4 (g) explain how play can continue if the maul ceases by stipulating how players can rejoin and where the offside lines are. Furthermore as there is no maul ,  open play laws may also apply except that the offside lines here are stipulated by the law 17.4 (f).

Law 17.4 (g) When players of the team who are not in possession of the ball in the maul voluntarily leave the maul such that there are no players of that team left in the maul, players of that team may rejoin the maul providing that the first player binds on the foremost player of the team in possession of the ball.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

Law 17.4 (f) When players of the team who are not in possession of the ball in the maul voluntarily leave the maul such that there are no players of that team left in the maul, the maul may continue and there are two offside lines. The offside line for the team in possession runs through the hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the maul and for the team not in possession it is a line that runs through the foremost foot of the foremost player of the team in possession at the maul.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

So in short the law and ruling go hand in hand because the 2009 law is written with the ruling incorporated to law and if there is still doubt the 2009 law would take precedent.

I hope this makes sense

Regards, Mark

4. Name: Coenie Gouvea

Question: When the Golden Lions played Cheetahs. Mark Lawrence gave Franco van der Merwe a penalty and a yellow card for being offside at knock-on.

I can understand the penalty but what made what he did vicious enough for a yellow card?

Mark Lawrence: Hello Coenie,

Who better to answer that question than me personally, Mark Lawrence?

Franco didn't do anything vicious. A yellow card is not just for vicious acts. The yellow card is also a tool used to  deter teams from repeatedly infringing the law and spoiling the game or Deliberately infringing the Laws of the game. And the latter is the reason for the yellow card.

Franco saw he was offside when the ball was knocked forward. He raised his hands to show he did not want to take part in play. He then saw that a Cheetah player was going to get the ball and that this could cost his team points. He then kicked the ball away, deliberately infringing. If it weren't for the fact that the fullback of the Lions was between the ball and the goal-line, I would have also considered a penalty try. As it happens, I couldn't rule that a try could probably have been scored and thus I gave a penalty. However, for the deliberate or cynical act, I awarded the yellow card in terms of Law 10.2 (a).

Law 10.2 (a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off. After a caution a player is temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes playing time. After a caution, the player commits the same or similar offence, the player must be sent off.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

Keep well and thanks for the interesting question.

Regards, Mark