This inevitably means the SH will manoeuvre the ball with hands, feet or otherwise into the best position.
Re 3, I think the YC was after a string of penalties and advantages and was blatantly playing the 9 when he didn't have the ball, but I agree with you that I think letting the 9 pull the ball out, put it down and still expect protection should be ruled out of the game. Neither the Scotland 9 nor the NZ 9 were/are particularly noted for this and neither side yesterday was ever really interested in slowing the game down once the ball was there to be played.
I do agree that some SHs do take the proverbial and use their feet to pull a ball too far towards themselves and thus out of the ruck!
I don't have any problem with the SH manoeuvring the ball back with his feet, after all, according to the Laws players are supposed to use their feet and not their hands in the ruck. I also have no problem with the SH digging for the ball, but when its laying there waiting to be picked up, they should leave it alone until they are going to pick it up.
Some might argue hands/feet, what is the difference? Well the difference is simple and important. If the SH uses his feet, the opposing defenders know that he is positioning the ball and is not about to pick it up. However, when the SH puts his hands on the ball, those defenders should have every right to expect that the next thing he will do is to lift the ball. If the SH moves his hands and leaves the ball at the last moment, defenders could react to the movement. I could make a good argument that a SH doing so is infringing a Law that says "
A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out..." at any phase of play: Ruck - Law 16.2 (c), Maul - Law 17.3 (b) and scrum - Law 20.9 (h).
This is why, IMO, the Laws should state that once the SH (or player acting as a SH) has put a hand or hands on the ball, they must keep their hands on until they pick it up.
