Pro Legoete, with four Tests and two Super 14 matches to his name, answers readers' questions.

1. Name: Morné Nortier

Question: Hi, just a quick question.  Do referees still apply the interpretation that an intercept is only 'legal' if the intercept is attempted by the defender with BOTH hands?  I remember this being a interpretation used a while back.
 
Thanks, Morné

Pro Legoete: Hi Morné

Referees look at the situation as a whole, i.e. where the  infringement take place, circumstances such as did the player in question try to catch and intercept the ball or did the player deliberately stop a try being scored by knocking it forward? Some players may use both hands to knock the ball forward and this may still be deemed to be deliberate. The referee will give the appropriate sanction: Penalty or Penalty try.

The law states: A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm, nor throw forward.

Penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored.

It's to do with intention - what the player tries to achieve - not the number of hands used.

Hope this answers your question.

Regards, Pro

2.  Name: Ollie Mentz

Question: Dit is baie keer onduidelik om te sien watter van die stutte in 'n vaste skrum skuldig is deur die skrum te laat val of in skrum. Kan oom asb net die basiese dinge waarna skeidsregters kyk uitlig? Dankie!

Pro Legoete: Halo Ollie,

Die vier belangrikste dinge om na te kyk om seker te maak dat 'n skrum nie val nie, is die volgende:

1. Kop en skouers laer as die heupe
2. Die inslaan moet aanvarbaar wees, wat gevolg word deur die onmiddelike bind van stutte. Indien 'n stut sy bind breek bestaan die moontlikheid van inskrum wat onwettig is en dit kan veroorsaak dat 'n skrum val.
3. Die skrum kan as 'n eenheid swaai en individuele hoeke deur voorry spelers is ontoelaatbaar.
4. Geen speller mag sy bolyf laat sak of draai nie.

Groete, Pro

3. Name: George
E-mail: geonix@absamail.co.za
 
Question: My question is with regard to Law 19.10 (f).
 
During a schools game this weekend the referee penalised the Blue team for early jumping in the line-out (jumper pretending to jump). The coach of Blue was very unhappy about this as he believes that it is only the player throwing in that is not allowed to pretend to jump. According to me the jumper is allowed to move up and down the line-out but not make a jumping motion (i.e. both his feet leave the ground in a jumping motion).
 
I tried to calm the coach down by showing him the law book and the law as above. I said to him that I wasn't there to argue with him but wanted to bring the letter of the law to his attention. Still he refused to be convinced and said that Victor Matfield should then be penalised in every game. He proceeded to say that the law book is wrong and that he will contact Gabbie (Gabriel Pappas) to clarify the matter.
 
My question is - was the referee correct in his application of the law?
 
What to do in future with coaches that don't know the laws and then convince all around him that he is correct. Situations like these create the negative image of us referees, and coaches, parents and supporters will always find the referee to incompetent if there team doesn't perform.
 
NB Law 19.10 (f) Jumping, supporting or lifting before the ball is thrown. A player must not jump or be lifted or supported before the ball has left the hands of the player throwing in.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

Pro Legoete: Hi George,

According to law, you are correct in interpretation and explanation. It is very difficult to have a discussion with coaches, players and spectators when emotions are high and the game is on a knife edge. My suggestion would be approach the coach or whoever that may raise the query once everything has settled down and things are much calmer (normally and preferably after the game). Your explanation will be taken and appreciated as the coach will not feel that you have something against his team.

Regards, Pro
 
4. Name: Graham Glendinning
 
Question: The new interpretation at the breakdown caused an outcry in the Six Nations, mostly among those who did not realise it was happening.
 
There was one occurrence on 55 minutes though: Welsh man in possession runs in to opposing David Wallace. They wrestle for the ball and fall to ground. Wallace penalised for not releasing.
 
Wallace had both arms on the ball, not the player - is this a tackle, or did it become a maul? If it were adjudged a maul, is it still a penalty?
 
Thanks, GG 
 
P.S. A scuffle did break out in the stands after the game. Actions like these sometimes make me think if it's really worth my time away from my family, being made out to be the scum of the earth.
 
But then comes Monday I'm over it and starts looking forward to my next appointment.
 
Regards, George
 
Pro Legoete: Hi GG,

The game will be the biggest loser if we lose spectators.

I'm glad you asked the question and hopefully after this question answer session, we will all be on the same understanding on how the law how it should be understood and interpreted.

Players who were attached to the player who is tackled and who remain on their feet must release the player and the ball (Law 15.6 (c)) and then may play the ball in accordance with Law 15.6 (b).

There has to be “clear daylight”, a clear attempt to release the tackler so that he can exercise his rights pop up a pass or place the ball, and only once the tackler has be allowed to do so can tackler then contest for the ball.

This refers to Wallace. He had to release Roberts and the ball.

Law 15.6 OTHER PLAYERS
(c) Players in opposition to the ball carrier who remain on their feet who bring the ball carrier to ground so that the player is tackled must release the ball and the ball carrier. Those players may then play the ball providing they are on their feet and do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or a tackler closest to those players’ goal line.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Please visit www.sareferees.co.za, your question is also being clarified there (Clip 5 – 17 March).

Enjoy watching rugby; your support is highly appreciated!

Regards, Pro

5. Name: Tony Duminy
 
Question: Hi Duty Ref.
 
In CLIP 2 - 3 MARCH I fully understand why Craig blew the penalty. Using the clip as a backdrop how far would the defenders in the line out have to move away from the line of touch, before contact is made or if no contact is made, for the referee to award a  penalty against the defenders for leaving the line out (19.4 (e))? My Thinking is that the defenders would have to move 2m from the line of touch (where the scrum half would normally stand.)
 
Thanks for your help. Keep up the great work.

Pro Legoete: Hi Toni,

The law states that: No player of either team participating in the line-out may leave the line-out until it has ended.
Sanction: Penalty on the 15 metre line.

Teams moving away from the line-out are hoping for a penalty for obstruction by the ball carrying team. This normally happens if the jumper passes the ball quickly to the back before the maul has been formed. Obstruction will be adjudicated if contact is made prior to the defending team have had an opportunity to contest for the ball or ball carrier. We have also seen defending teams try not to commit to the phase because there is a possibility of a maul being formed and we have seen some teams have a big advantage, and this causes the defending team to use illegal means to try and stop the maul. Players must move away before the line-out begins.

Cheers for now, Pro