There is, it seems, no longer anything approaching an off-season and here is Stu Berry in the midst of a Durban summer answering readers' questions.

1. Name: Mike Greyling 

Question: Hi Stu, thanks for the insight.  

I was surprised by the ban on Dan Carter, in particular because I was under the impression that the citing commissioner should only report an act which would/(could?) have resulted in a red card. While the tackle was certainly high and dangerous it seemed at worst worthy of a yellow in my opinion.  While I would appreciate your thoughts about the tackle itself I'm most interested in the actual requirement of the citing commissioner.  Is my perception about the severity of the offence correct? Is this the same for all games or does it get decided for each series as per agreements between the teams/unions?

Thanks again.

Stu Berry: Hi Mike.  Always a pleasure, keep the questions coming. 

The citing process is something that is totally separate from our duties and obligations as a referee.  As is only human, a referee will miss certain offences on the field, some of which amount to foul play, which is contrary to the code of conduct of the game of rugby.  The citing commissioner is a qualified individual who is tasked with identifying any form of foul play that the referee may have missed, or may have under-sanctioned.  For example, a referee may give a penalty for a biting incident, but the citing commissioner may still cite this incident.  In terms of the citing process, that is a whole separate issue that not only considers the laws of the game, but includes a huge legal side to it as well, where lawyers and advocates are appointed to chair the commission.  Issues such as previous misconducts, disciplinary history, match circumstances, etc, are all taken into account.

Your question is one that is widely asked, and I really don't have a firm answer in terms of the later part of your query that relates to the ‘blueprint’ employed by citing commissions. 

2. Name: Mark Middelhoven 

Question: A question regarding the "test match" of Wales vs the All Blacks. In the first half a ruck was formed on the Welsh try-line after a Welsh player had be tackled wit the ball, possession to New Zealand. The ref said: "Leave it, Red." The the New Zealand players then attempted to score a try. The ref went to the TMO who ruled that the ball had been knocked on by New Zealand. The ref disallowed the try and then gave a penalty to New Zealand for the Welsh player handling the ball on the ground. 

My question is why wasn't that a penalty try?

Stu Berry: Hi Mark... thanks for your submission and question. 

The ‘red zone’ decisions always seem to be the most contentious with readers and supporters alike, and understandably so. In the incident you described above, Craig Joubert, the referee, communicated that it was a ruck (not a tackle) and that the red defender should keep his hands out.  The red defender, in competing for the ball illegally at the ruck with his hands, slowed the ball down for the All Blacks, and hence the penalty was awarded from the advantage played by Craig. 

The issue of a penalty try is one that bases itself on whether a try would probably, which is very close to definitely, have been scored should the offence not have taken place.  In this situation, Craig adjudged that had Red not slowed the ball down, there was no clear evidence that Black would definitely have scored, and hence the penalty was awarded.

3. Name: Bryan Combrinck

Question: You have just been to Singapore and others are refereeing all over Europe.

Who pays for travel, board and lodging? Do you fly economy class? Do you get paid for doing those matches?

Stu Berry: Hi Bryan,

Thanks for your mail.  Great to get a question aside from law.  Singapore was great, and what a superb opportunity we get to travel the world and referee the game we enjoy so much.

In terms of travel, it all depends on where you are going, and what for. If I travel internally for Currie Cup and Super 14, then my travel arrangements are done through SA Rugby (including car hire, accommodation and food) for the duration of my trip. Singapore, for example, was a trip at the invite of the Singapore Cricket Club, who host the Sevens, and so my travel, accommodation, etc, was covered by the tournament. I have always flown economy class, however once you start travelling big times zones and overseas for vital international games, arriving sometimes only a few days before games, the general acceptance is that business class is the preferred means of travel to allow the referee full opportunity to recover quickly from his/her travels.

Some referees get paid as professionals, others as amateurs (on a match fee basis).  Some tournaments, the invite and experience is the lasting enjoyment, and there is no payment involved.  I think that I speak on behalf of most of the referees in the world, whether test match standard of 4th league, that our driving motivation for reffing is primarily enjoyment and being involved in the game.

4. Name: Bunny Bolton

Question: I'd like to ask about this business of no material effect that referees practise and preach. 

If is the right thing to do, why is it not universally applied?

If a player 30 metres from the rest drops a kick and then picks it up, he is blown though what he has done has no material effect on his opponents. In fact the only person harmed is himself.

Yet a player goes offside and thereby puts pressure on the opponents. You tell him to get back and if he does you let play go on because he had no effect.

Stu Berry: Hi Bunny, thanks for your mail and what a great question, and one that you probably won't get a firm answer for by the time I'm done with my next paragraph.

Material effect is a key part of the game nowadays, and as referees, we are adapting to the law by trying to contribute as much to the game within law, which includes the judgment of material effect. In the example above, the law states that if a player knocks the ball forward towards the opposition's goal-line, then that is adjudged to be a scrum to the opposition. That is the law. On the other hand, let’s say for example a defending player joins a maul from the side (i.e. offside position), the referee communicates to him, and he then unbinds and moves back to an onside position, without changing the outcome of the maul whatsoever. A referee would be well within his rights, according to law, to penalise this player, but we need to ask ourselves what effect he has actually had, and that is where the management side of refereeing and the contribution we can make to the game comes into the equation, In such an incident, the preferred approach is to not penalise, as the player has had no material, quantifiable effect on the game, but to rather manage the player in ‘down time’ (i.e. at the next line-out or scrum) to ensure that we try and talk him out of such an infringement in the future.  

I hope this explanation helps, and my lasting summary would be that material effect, like advantage, is perceptive to the referee, but a blend between law and feel for the game are probably the two most vital aspects in judging this.