Interpretation of the 10m

[Spirit of 66]

During one of the games last night, a commentator indicated that there would be TWO interpretations of the 10m rule in defence this year. I think he said that, when defending one's line, both feet needed to be behind the ref; anywhere else, only one foot needed to be behind the ref (or maybe it was the other way around).

If true, why?

(In reality, I thought the refs in all the games so far were extremely forgiving of defensive teams in their own quarter. Few, if any, of the defenders had either of their feet behind the ref in this situation.)

[Juggler]

During one of the games last night, a commentator indicated that there would be TWO interpretations of the 10m rule in defence this year. I think he said that, when defending one's line, both feet needed to be behind the ref; anywhere else, only one foot needed to be behind the ref (or maybe it was the other way around).

If true, why?

(In reality, I thought the refs in all the games so far were extremely forgiving of defensive teams in their own quarter. Few, if any, of the defenders had either of their feet behind the ref in this situation.)

I think in situations away from the line, their bodies have to be in line with the referee. On their line, both feet have to be on or behind the line.