Down time during a match is a good time for the referee to explain and manage. Stu Berry is on down time now as the Southern Hemisphere gets a chance to catch its breath but its a good time for him to explain by answering readers' question.

1. Name: John Freter 

Question: There is currently a great deal of discussion in the English press and media over the violent nature of the game and its inherent dangers. The collision tackle, with both players still upright running into each other at immense speed is a matter of hot debate. 

Jonathan Kaplan penalised and cautioned Australia's Wycliff Palu for such a tackle, but many have questioned this decision, ruling the tackle fair under the laws.

How are referees being coached and advised to approach such violent collisions? What makes them lawful, and what makes them illegal?

Stu Berry: Hi John, thanks for your mail, and your query certainly is a topical one at the moment.

A referee is empowered to ensure that the game is played within the Laws, and one of the key focuses of the Law is to ensure the safety of all players on the field.

Tackles, being the point of conflict and contact in rugby, naturally come into the spotlight when one assesses the safety aspect of the game.  Yes, this is a contact sport, however the key phrase for a referee needs to be focused around whether a tackle is dangerous or not, and in saying this, I refer to the demise of the term “High Tackle” to a revised phrase “Dangerous Tackle”….in other words, it doesn't need to be high to be dangerous.  The law requires players to tackle an opposition as follows:

i. Using the arms, making contact with the arms and not a leading shoulder.

ii. By not at any stage willfully lifting a player off his feet without bringing him back down to his feet in a safe manner.

The collision tackle you talk about is inevitable nowadays with the pace of the game.  The key is that the tackler uses his arms in that process, and at no stage leads with the shoulder.

2. Name: Alessandro Cossu 

Question: First of all, many a thanks to the SA referees for providing this excellent service. 

I have two questions: 

i) You mentioned in another reply that the issue whether a penalty try is to be awarded essentially depends on the probability that a try would have been scored, had an offence not taken place. Law 10.3 (b) states that a penalty try may be awarded if repeated infringements prevent a probable try: does this mean that, no matter how many intentional offences take place, the award of a penalty try still depends only on whether the try would have probably been scored? I am asking this because, in the Italy-New Zealand game of Saturday, I had the impression that, in the final 10 minutes, the repeated collapses of the scrum (which the ref considered to be the AB's fault) prevented Italy from having a fair attempt to score a pushover try.

ii) Provided you have access to the footage of the last 10 minutes of the Italy-AB game, do you think the Italian tighthead was boring in?

Stu Berry: Hi Alessandro. Thanks for your mail. 

The law refers:  ‘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.’  So by law, a repeated infringement in itself cannot result in a penalty try, but the occurrence of an offence (which may be a series of the same offence, such as an illegal scrummaging technique close to the try line) may result in a penalty try.  In this particular example, it is key to note that the penalty try will be awarded for the infringement that last occurred, and not as a culmination of the offences that preceded that.

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.

I must be honest in that I did not see the game, and so cannot comment on the legality of the Italian tight head, however if you take a look at my answers to Lappies’s question below, it may help answer your question.

Thank you.

3. Name: Lappies Labuschagne 

Question: Scrums

My reading of the rules is that a prop has to bind properly and scrum strain ahead. Over the last year and particularly since the semi finals in the Curie Cup I have noticed (even more noticeable in the year end tour) the tight head props scrum almost strait onto the hooker. (Martin Castrogiovanni is a great exponent of this) This cause the loosehead to break his bind the hooker on several occasions to pop out and the scrum ending in (to my mind) a very dangerous shamble I know there is a lot of international controversy going on but please help us to clarify the rules What is boring in, walking around, etc.

I think if the refs just blow the scrums true to the law all the mess will clear up.

Please help as my mind is in a muddle.

Stu Berry: Hi Lappies. 

Thanks for your mail, and the issue of scrummaging certainly is a hot topic of discussion at the moment, so much so that it dominated the IRB referees meeting discussions in the UK a few weeks ago.

The law is a guide to a referee in managing a scrum, and each referee adopts their own management style in dealing with scrums, however the law is the guiding element.

A prop has the following sequential obligations:

·         Line up square with the rest of the front row.

·         Crouch, touch, pause and engage on the referees call.

·         On engagement, bind long and immediately.

·         Once the ball is fed, scrum legally which entails pushing straight, no walking sideways or backwards, and no popping or collapsing.

It is a tough part of the game to manage, and I really do believe that natural physics account for many of the scrum collapses/pop’s.  Take 850kg on each pack and ask them to engage at that force, and at some stage physics will ensure it either pops or drops.  Referees need to be mindful of that, but having said that, teams also understand the importance of elements such as the hit…..a team who loses the hit may even collapse the scrum on purpose.  The general rule of thumb for referees is that we need to get the clear and obvious….and that applies to the scrum as well.  A player who is clearly not scrumming straight intentionally needs to be penalized and managed after that to ensure that he/she doesn't continue to disrupt the scrum.  Remember, a prop going forward and in doesn't necessarily mean he is scrumming in…..that may just be the dynamic and movement of that scrum.  Key in judging the angle of a prop is largely, I believe, based around feet angle and spine angle….these two elements can tell a referee a lot about what is going on and the intentions of the props.

4. Name: Andre de Klerk 

Question: Hi Stu,

At a quick throw in, is the ball still alive if it hits 1- the camera man 2 the camera mans camera, so what is a good rule of thumb when deciding.

Stu Berry: Hi Andre.  A quick throw can't be allowed if it touches the cameraman of his camera.  The only ‘outside’ object we can allow a quick thrown to be taken from is if it touches the advertising boards.

Also a follow up on lazy runners, you say the lazy runner can be put back on side when the opposition passes the ball, what if the opposition scrummy passes the ball to the lazy runner, who is running back to his side and is between the opposition scrummy and flyhalf when he gets passed this ball by mistake, can lazy runner play on. 

In this cases that you describe, that lazy runner is still offside, and so a penalty would be awarded in this regard.

5. Name: Ian Marais

Question: Hi

I downloaded the latest rugby laws and checked some laws as I was confused in the way rules are interpreted and "selective" blowing was applied or so it seems to me. What sometimes seems to be ok for one team seems to be taboo for another and what I gather is that some laws are so "grey" that it can be blown in any way and the referee will always be 100% correct. It is just a matter of judgement by the ref I guess and the laws is open for that. Take as an example in a tackle situation, at what point is the tackler not letting go of the opponent and at what point is the tackler holding on to the ball and not allowed to place the ball? It really is a toss of a coin as to how the ref will blow. Some refs seem to always favour the one side. After the game the ref gets full marks but he might as well have blown differently and changed the outcome of a game and still get full marks!

Why are many laws ignored in a game? e.g. putting the ball in skew into the scrum, loitering on the side of a ruck (not retiring behind last feet), not going through the gate (it is blown only sometimes and some teams seem to get away with it during a whole game), playing ball on ground (this happens in every ruck, i.e. pushing the ball backwards or just holding it with the hand, etc.

How long can a player hold on to a ball after being tackled? It seems that sometimes it is like a good few seconds and other times he is blown immediately.

I would like to see laws in the ruck being simplified and most of them removed to provide less opportunity for penalties as they take too long in many cases and it interrupts play too often and defeats the objective of getting the game to flow. It will also provide the ref less laws to watch out for and be more fare by not overlooking one transgression but seeing another!

Thanks

Ian

Stu Berry: Hi Ian,

Thanks for your question, and the breakdown certainly is a contentious part of the game, highlighted by the fact that the IRB included so many experimental laws around the breakdown last year.

The key question I would encourage you to ask yourself each time you see one of these incidents is what effect it has had on the game.  As a referee, we are empowered to blow the laws of the game within the context of the game, so a player who goes to ground and holds onto the ball, then pop’s it 3 sec later to a supporting player, is fine to do that provided that no opposition players have been competing for the ball.  In the same situation, where the player holds onto the ball and pops it while there is a competing opposition player, then the tolerance for him holding on would be zero as he has had an effect on the game, so in this example you will see how a player is required to release the ball under two different circumstances.

As mentioned, a referee’s judgment call is based on law combined with common sense, resulting in what hopefully ends up being a better game of rugby.

Hope this answers your question appropriately!