The format is Q & A. Enjoy...........................

The definition of the Penalty Try law is 'a try would probably have been scored'. However nowadays it seems to have become 'after giving away a few successive penalties at the scrum'. While I'm ok with this in the spirit of the game (especially since the alternative - yellow cards for props - inevitably ends in uncontested scrums), how would Ash recommend the wording be changed?

A penalty can be given after just one infringement in line with the spirit of the text of the law.  (even this year a player has said "but that was the first scrum, you didn't warn us", if the referee feels but "for the actions of a defending player, a try WOULD PROBABLY have been scored" a penalty try can be awarded.

Would favour a dual approach to uncontested scrums, one to cover the "fully professional" i.e. Premiership and ND1 or whatever it might be called in the future and secondly so not to prevent Old Rubberduckians vs Bradford on Avon 3rds being able to continue due to there being no third prop on the bench.

Why do refs appear to find it so difficult to spot offside when teams are defending rucks, couldn't they use TJs to help on this?

They do use TJs to assist with this - TJ is encouraged to say "Scan" ie look at the defending backs and "guards" ie look at the guards/pillars standing to the side of the ruck, both offensive and defensive, however, if the ref decides he does not want the information, there is nothing the TJ can do.  It is much easier by the way when you are looking down on the game as opposed to being at pitch level.

Is the flying wedge now legal?

It is not legal - where have you seen evidence of this happening?

How well is the increased responsibility of touch judges working in practice? From a spectator's point of view the officiating teams seem to be taking time to develop a different style of communication to suit their new roles...

The roles have not really changed very much, the name, yes, the role no. In England it has always worked this way and quite well in my opinion. The IRB seemed to have learnt from England's lead i.e a couple of GP TJ's have officiated in Test matches.  TJs have three primary responsibilities, the rest is on an advisory basis to the ref who can take it or leave it. The three are ball in touch, ball in goal, and foul play, which was the very first reason why England introduced neutral TJ's (although this brings in concept of leading and trailing TJ - dealt with already on the board under the "ask CN1 thread").

The reality of this situation is the amount of "need to advise" or "advice taken" will always be a factor of the make-up of the three match officials and be dependent on blend, experience. Ie this "Sir" would not be making multiple recommendations every half to DP, CW, or WB.

Why do refs and TJs permit feeding of the scrum? And that's not even an ELV.]

 This is technically nothing to do with the TJ unless the scrum is within 5m of touch and the referee is on the "wrong side of the tunnel". In normal circumstances it is the refs call - TJs have other stuff to do - back row binding, midfield offside, foul play etc

When the ELV'S are almost totally scrapped later this month, which seemed to be the line taken in the Sunday Times yesterday, will the linesmen ( as I used to know them!) continue to be called an "Ars" - istant referee? I rather like this term!

Yes, but Sir would like to be called a Touch Judge, because a lot of people think that because we are now "Assistant referee's" we are there to referee the match and we aren't, we are there to assist when the referee might be unsighted i.e knock on's, forward passes, blatant midfield offside etc,etc

Which ELV's does CN want to see retained (if any)?

Hooker not standing in channel/Receiver 2m back (making it easier to see who is and isn't in)

Touch flag not part of playing area/Ball to be thrown in backwards

TJ's should have obligatory tasks and responsibilities, not discretionary depending on the whims of the Ref.
Yeah or Nay!

They do, see above on primary responsibilities. 7-8 years ago when TJ's were allowed to do so on a wider basis some very marginal calls were being made, which were affecting match results. The ref has to be the ref and the game does not benefit from multiple "marginal" calls, especially when the person calling them is sometimes 40/50 yards from the action.

I know issues re the AR's have been raised above, but I'd like a broader clarification of what refs think they are now there for, and if it is dependent on what each ref wants at each game. If that is so - why don't you use them more?? Or if not you personally, why don't refs in general seem to use them as much as they might.

They could be used to give you a commentary on what is going on in areas of the pitch you can't look at (because you are looking somewhere else) and therefore give you the eyes in the back of your head we all expect you to have.

And what is your view re yellow or red carding a player on the say so of an AR/TJ if you haven't seen the incident.

This is another question where the relative experience and the make-up of the group of match officials comes into play. A lot of the time, there is communication in relation to trends in the match.  Some TJs give a running commentary (which they are discouraged from doing)  depending on the levels of experience relative to each other, but generally TJs are discouraged from making marginal calls incessantly. The other VERY RELEVANT fact is that in the modern game, the actions of a player that are illegal BUT DO NOT HAVE A MATERIAL EFFECT on dictating what the non-offending team want to do, will not be penalised i.e. team A burst into team B's 22 metre area, team A recycle quick ball, as they do, a player from team B blatantly comes in the side of the ruck but has no effect on the speed of the ball or just as importantly, where the ball is passed to.

In terms of the second question, this Sir would never undermine his TJ (although it has been done to him a long time ago over a red card situation). If he has not seen a specific incident, he would ask for clarification of the incident by asking the TJ to comment then repeating back to the TJ what he had said and what his advice was before taking the action.

Should the ref mike be liked up to the ground PA system (as it is in American Football I believe)?
We might all then be able to understand the ref's decisions better! (except at the rec with our awful PA system)

It should come as no surprise to you that Sir would live to be miked up. However, unlike say American football there would be an almost incessant "commentary/dialogue" going on and this would be to the detriment of the viewing public, plus it would put even more pressure on the officials to be correct in their calls and like all sports, everyone has different view in the stadium, to the guy who is in the main, normally, no more that 5 metres away

Why are some penalty offences within the 15 metre channel awarded 15m infield and others where the offence took place?

All offences at the lineout are given on the 15 metre line as the lineout has not finished. If a player kicks the ball and is late tackled and his kick has alighted inside the 15 metre line, the resulting pen will also be on the 15 metre line.

How should the uncontested scrum situation be resolved?

Two seasons ago, the French (outside IRB protocol) decided in their Top 14, that if you went to uncontested scrums, you had to remove a player from your team, thereby, it discouraged teams as they would be playing a man less for however long there were uncontested scrums. It doesn't sound that much but it obviously did to the teams as uncontested scrums dropped by over 80%!

To what extent are refs guided by the PRL/RFU on enforcement of the laws, especially for televised games? A ref I know who is junior to Himself genuinely believes top level refs are given distinct guidance on application of laws to keep the game moving. IMHO, players take liberties because they know this, and would not if they knew sanction would follow. Thus the difference in spectacle would be minimal once players (and coaches) got the message.

Sorry to disappoint but this DEFINITELY is not the case, either specific to TV or approach to specific players/Clubs, in fact the mantra of all officials is referee what you see. Yes, officials do their homework pre the match, but that is for if things start to go wrong, it gives you an idea where you might need to be looking to rectify the situation.

View a Printer Friendly version of this Story.

Bookmark or share this story with:

• Digg
• Delicious
• Facebook
• Reddit
• Stumbleupon