Managing the Scrum

[bcm666]

Before you all roll your eyes, I was asked to do this by another bored member. The things i assert are, from my experience, those which will minimise trouble at the scrum; they will not stop all collapses because they can occur accidentally and some props cannot resist the urge to cheat. Nevertheless, I do believe that if you can get these established you will have a much easier afternoon:-

1. Before the game talk to the scrum half and the front row whilst the team is in the changing room. This is so that their peers know what they have been told and they cannot claim afterwards that you did not tell them something. It also helps you on the field because if they give away a number of penalties or free kicks it is highly likely that someone will say "He told you about this before the game - why don;t you listen"

2. I would tell them that whatever has happened previously in this game the ball is going to go in straight and by that I mean down the middle line which is below where the shoulders meet, not anywhere else. Furthermore, if this doesn't happen I will yellow card without hesitation.

3. To the front rows I would say that I will make a long mark where the engagement has to take place and they should use it because from the mark I will judging whether they or the opposition have pushed over it before the ball is put in.

4. Regarding the CTPE I would tell them that they must listen to the timing and do the phases when called. I would also explain that I have to check certain things are right on each stage and I have to have time to do this so the call will not be rushed, but I would try and make the calls without long pauses.

5. I would tell them that on the engagement I will not allow them to drive on impact and they will not be allowed to drive until the ball is fed by the scrum half.

6. The final point I would make is that the law states binding is on the other props shirt and that I wanted long binds. If I catch them binding on the arm they will be penalised, even if the scrum does not collapse.

Thereafter all that remains is to carry out what you say and without exception. I would make sure that I gave the explanation of any sanction sufficiently loudly for most of the miscreant's team to hear because they will help as set out at the beginning of this post. I would also remind them that I told them about whatever was the offence before the game. Finally, if a player continues to offend - one warning to him in front of his captain then yellow card. If he won't play ball when he comes back on - one warning to captain that next time it is red and if he does it is red and he is off.

I do not believe that you will ever need to get anywhere near a red and hopefully few yellows, but you have to carry out a threat or it is meaningless. I also think that this helps your authority generally.

Regarding the number of times you have to blow the whistle. I don't care if it is all the time early on because they cannot claim I did not explicitly tell them beforehand and it is not my fauilt if they are ****ing thick. It won't go on all game because players will be in the bin and they can and do adapt very quickly when they want to. If they don't - that is not my fault.

 

[Donal1988]

Point 1 - Agree

Point 2 - I think yellow cards for a not straight is a bit harsh and probably unnecessary. If you FK it every time you will get compliance. I agree with sentiment of enforcing the straight feed.

Point 3 - Do not fully understand this business about "long mark".

Point 4 - Agree

Point 5 - Agree

Point 6 - Strongly Agree.

 

[OB..]

1. I hear most referee doing just that.
2. If by "without hesitation" you mean "on the first offence", then I think that is overkill. If you simply mean that if they keep doing it they will be carded, no problem.
3. I hear TV referees telling players to "take the hit". If the scrum moves off your mark, is it your view that the direction tells you who was at fault?
4. Again, part of most briefings.
5. Agreed.
6. Agreed.

 

[SimonSmith]

Point 1 - Agree

Point 2 - I think yellow cards for a not straight is a bit harsh and probably unnecessary. If you FK it every time you will get compliance. I agree with sentiment of enforcing the straight feed.

Point 3 - Do not fully understand this business about "long mark".

Point 4 - Agree

Point 5 - Agree

Point 6 - Strongly Agree.

YC for feeding? Youbetcha, if the SH is that stupid.
The 'long mark' probably means a long horizontal line on the pitch. That way there is a visible line, as opposed to the usal 'dig your heel in' type of mark which is difficult to see,

 

[Donal1988]

I think any referee who yellow cards "without hestitation" for a crooked feed is guilty of allowing pet peeves to affect his handling of the game. Would you and Brian recommed a hooker who throws several crooked throws get an early card? By all means give a freekick everytime. He will lose possession every time. If it becomes a trend upgrade it to a Penalty kick and he will lose possession and possibly 3 points. If it still is becoming a trend then :yc: However I think it would be extremely poor refereeing to go yellow card "without hesitation" for a technical offense like yellow card.

Thanks for the explanation about the line Simon. I agree with OB though it is not as simple as who is over that line as there is a "taking the hit" issue.

 

[SimonSmith]

If after two FKs and a stern warning about feeding, why would you be reluctant to flash a card?

For every time you call it a "pet peeve" I could call it bottling a call...

 

[Dixie]

Donal is trying to establish whether a card "without hesitation" is a card for the first offence. I think most people would agree that a card is reasonable for persistent infringement. I expect BCM666's legal experience would disincline him to a first offence card. Both as a lawyer and an entertainer, he know what Equity is!

 

[Donal1988]

Because there is no escalation from FK to PK to card and no sign of Ask, Tell, Penalise. I have no problem with yellow cards for crooked feeding. The phrase "without hesitation" leads me to think that after one or two we could see a scrumhalf sitting in the stands for 10 minutes. Refereeing is about management and if I can manage the situation without cards well and good.

I just think that there is a view now that because referees have been exceptionally lenient in the past we should now be exceptionally strict. If we enforce the law there is little need for cards.

 

[stuart3826]

I would suggest caution before you use terms like "next time it's a yellow/red". If for any reason you miss the next one or forget who you threatened you will look like you wimped out. Far better to say something like "skipper your players are limiting my options. Sort them out before I have to"

Don't leave yourself with no options!

 

[FlipFlop]

BCM - how's the reffing going? You been back out yet?

The points you make are mostly valid, and mostly what are done by most refs and the lower levels. Although application isn't always that successful. Your points do however seem to be written without that knowledge, or without the experience of how to manage the game as a ref.

They are sadly over simplified. We need to manage the game - and that also means being consistent from phase to phase - we can't be over pedantic on one area and not in others for example.

This is why I hope you do continue to ref - I want to hear your views on how to manage the scrum etc not only from a player and commentators view, but also from a refs view point. And how that fits into managing the game.

Please don't take this post the wrong way - I do appreciate you sharing your views. It is just they have a tendancy to come across like a newbie ref (all be it with vastly more playing experience!). Once you have the experience as a ref I think you will see what this means.

Take as an example - the binding issue - say both props fail to bind properly - who to penalise? Both sides push early and the scrum wheels a bit, or isn't stable - who to penalise? Things aren't black and white, or that simple.

This where i would like to hear you experience - when you have the grey areas, or both sides infringing - how to manage the situation/penalise etc.

 

[bcm666]

BCM - how's the reffing going? You been back out yet?

The points you make are mostly valid, and mostly what are done by most refs and the lower levels. Although application isn't always that successful. Your points do however seem to be written without that knowledge, or without the experience of how to manage the game as a ref.

They are sadly over simplified. We need to manage the game - and that also means being consistent from phase to phase - we can't be over pedantic on one area and not in others for example.

This is why I hope you do continue to ref - I want to hear your views on how to manage the scrum etc not only from a player and commentators view, but also from a refs view point. And how that fits into managing the game.

Please don't take this post the wrong way - I do appreciate you sharing your views. It is just they have a tendency to come across like a newbie ref (all be it with vastly more playing experience!). Once you have the experience as a ref I think you will see what this means.

Take as an example - the binding issue - say both props fail to bind properly - who to penalise? Both sides push early and the scrum wheels a bit, or isn't stable - who to penalise? Things aren't black and white, or that simple.

This where i would like to hear you experience - when you have the grey areas, or both sides infringing - how to manage the situation/penalise etc.

Sorry but you cannot expect me in a post requested to cover how i thought the scrum should be refereed to cover all eventualities. For God's sake I am capable of distinguishing between points.

I have stepped out onto the field again and did the warm-up game before the London Scottish final home game - only 40 mins but just about got through although my calf cramped again. I intend to referee this month and continue to do so next season frequently.

Regarding the mark and one pack going over it. As far as I am aware under the laws, the only responsibility a pack has is to engage on that mark and not do anything to move away from it. It does not have a responsibility to engage as hard as the other pack and certainly not to match any illegal early push - which is what is actually meant when referees say 'take the hit'.

It is actually almost impossible for a whole pack to walk backwards and make it look natural, but as far as I am aware a pack does not have any responsibility to resist an early and illegal shove that comes before the ball leaves the scrum half's hands and which moves it backwards.

What many seem to fail to realise is that it is perfectly possible to engage with considerable force and not advance over the mark; even if the other pack engages meekly. You might get a six inches or a foot of movement forward, and I stress might, but this would be distinguishable from the early push which almost always starts and continues until the whistle or collapse or the scrum running all over the place.

Therefore I equate a pack going over the mark by anything more as an early hit and most of all from a referees point of view, if you have made a clear mark you can simply point to it and the fact that the pack you are penalising is over the mark and they will have to adjust the force with which they hit. If that means they cannot hit and drive early so much the better, however much they complain and do not like it. Again, if anybody can point to me where in the laws there is a responsibility for any pack to engage in a certain manner, other than obeying the CTPE, then I will reconsider this.

Of course I wouldn't card a SH for a first offence of feeding and probably not a second, but the warning would be to impress upon the SH that I meant what I said about the feed and that I wouldn't like too many referees ignore it or only look at it for the first couple of scrums.

In the game I refer to I gave two feeding FKs and one pushing early. I had to reset one scrum which didn't go on the CTPE and apart from that no collapses and no complaints.

I will tell you why I can be pedantic at this area and not others - materiality; I take the view that scrums can be dangerous (I have visited too many quadraplegic and tetraplegic cases caused by scrums) and anything that makes them unstable is not to be tolerated. From other threads you will know my argument on causation and the crooked feed and early push and nobody has been able to contradict it or offer a more cogent explanation for present problems in the scrum. Those who argue that a crooked feed cannot be dangerous are being wilfully blind in my opinion, the things that flow from such feeds are there for all to see. If that doesn't go down well on any assessment I have then so what - I will know that I did all I could to ensure the scrums were as safe as they could be in an activity with inherent danger. And on top of all that, I know very well that front rows can scrummage within the laws if they want to or are encouraged to do so. If they won't then they won't be on the pitch - simple.

A hooker stepping marginally onto the field of play when throwing and similar does not have the same potential for harm and can be treated differently.

 

[Donal1988]

Of course I wouldn't card a SH for a first offence of feeding and probably not a second, but the warning would be to impress upon the SH that I meant what I said about the feed and that I wouldn't like too many referees ignore it or only look at it for the first couple of scrums.

Glad you explained it. I had a vision of you producing a :yc: to a #9 after one or two scrums. I do agree this is a management tool that could well be used if constant infringing persists.

 

[Ian_Cook]

BCM

I lot of what you say makes sense now. Whereas before, I dismissed your straight-feed theory as somewhat crackpot, I am beginning to see that insisting on it will give both teams a fair shot at a contest in the scrums, and ultimately will help to keep scrums stable. Its not 100% of the answer, but it is a significant part of it.

However, I cannot believe the number of elite referees that are STILL missing another significant part of the answer, by allowing props to bind on their opponents' arms and sleeves. IMO, they (the referees) are simply making a rod for their own backs by doing this.

Insisting on a long bind onto the opposing prop's back makes it very difficult for props to engage in the type of disruptive shenanigans that we see going on in front rows. What is more, a scrum with long binding front rows is naturally stable. The fact that the props are unable to cock their elbows helps to prevent them bringing any sideways or vertical force onto their opponent.

The upshot of this is that not only are collapsing, lifting, driving up, twisting and boring-in much more difficult to do, any attempts to do so become much more difficult to hide from the referee.


When I try explaining the dynamics of this to people who have never played in the front row, they often have difficulty in understanding or believing that a bent arm is much stronger than a straight arm. The simple exercise of doing normal press-ups then doing straight-arm press-ups usually settles the matter.

 

[Robert Burns]

Brian,

Thank you for the contribution to the forums for me.

I asked Brian to undertake this task for me to add to the managing your game section of the site as the insight from a very experienced and high level player, as well as a person learning the role of a referee.

I almost fell off my chair with laughter when I read about YC'ing the Scrum half for the crooked feed, I knew straight away you wern't saying that, but from a management point of view I can see that straightening scrum feeds very quickly! :chin: :biggrin:

There is actually some very good pieces of advice there, some we do, some we don't.

I hope, as I am sure Brian does, that new and experienced Referee's will look at this and think about the way they do it. Everyone has their own style, but if it is safe and fair, I think most will be happy.

 

[Bill Lee]

Donal,
you firstly mentioned free kicks only, P2. My attitude as a referee was 3rd time lucky, its now a penalty. If the individual was stupid enough to persist both he and his captain knew that following two penalties the next offence would bring a yellow card. This also give the captain the opportunity to sub that particular scrum half if that option was available to him. Not that different to subbing the prop in the Toulon v Connaught game.

Now and again you do run into an individual who will not listen to the referee, in my experience.... very young players who seem to think its his opinion against the ref's and is too bloody minded to change.

 

[Dickie E]

BCM,

a nice summary - thanks.

You don't make any mention about instructing/requiring props to push straight (not up, down, in ,out, etc.). Any reason for that?

 

[Donal1988]

Donal,
you firstly mentioned free kicks only, P2. My attitude as a referee was 3rd time lucky, its now a penalty. If the individual was stupid enough to persist both he and his captain knew that following two penalties the next offence would bring a yellow card. This also give the captain the opportunity to sub that particular scrum half if that option was available to him. Not that different to subbing the prop in the Toulon v Connaught game.

This is also my opinion aswell. I dont think I said anything to give an otherwise impression. I certainly didnt mean it. I thought I suggest that I would escalate from a FK to a PK to Cards as needs be. In fact I outline that in P#8 and also in this thread where I asked the forum what they thought of my decision to award a PK instead of a yellow card for multiple crooked feeding offences.

Brian, can I just ask do you give the breakdown, lineout, player management, fitness the same amount of thought that you do with scrums. I always have this feeling that you are refereeing to right the wrongs of the modern scrum (itself not a criticism indeed Mark Lawrence says the reason he became a referee was dissatisfaction with how refereeing was done when he was younger). Maybe its just because its a topic you are knowledgeable on and comment a lot on but I worry that you see your role in refereeing as being there to oversee scrums rather than facilitate 80 minute games of rugby.

As I said maybe Im wrong and the fact that you talk so much about the scrum that it has just led me to associate Brian Moore and Scrum. I hope you wont be offended by that. Constructive criticism and debate are not the the same as disrespect :swet:

 

[OB..]

Now and again you do run into an individual who will not listen to the referee, in my experience.... very young players who seem to think its his opinion against the ref's and is too bloody minded to change.

Or it is an ingrained habit that takes over when he is concentrating on something else, such as watching for the tap signal.

There is a venerable #8 locally who finds it very hard not to ride his chariot when the other team wins the ball in a scrum. Up he goes, holding on firmly with both hands, scanning the play. A senior referee kept reminding him, and spoke to the captain, warning them that it would be a penalty if material. Sometimes you could see him remember when halfway up, and sink down again, but all to often his long-term instinct took over. Reacting to the reminders probably made him slower in getting away from the scrum, and it was not until the second half that the referee finally had to penalise him.

You don't make any mention about instructing/requiring props to push straight (not up, down, in ,out, etc.). Any reason for that?

Too obvious?

 

[Bill Lee]

Donal,
My comments were initially built around your P2, having looked back you do expand into penalties / cards in P5 & P8. Quite honestly I am gobsmacked that my comments are so far down .... P15. I will have to speed up my one finger and not take so long checking for mistakes.

Thanks OB.. for yr comments. P18, In a similar vein, was watching a L6 game a few weeks ago and the young scrum half / much older hooker interaction (inaction) was driving me up the wall, there were long delays before the ball was introduced to the scrum, with the referee doing very little to sort the problem. As a former hooker, I believe the referee should not initially try to determine which player is causing the problem, warn, FK, FK, & joint warning as escalating to a penalty, having got to this stage it should also be fairly clear just who is causing the problem.
.
Bill Lee

 

[Phil E]

Before you all roll your eyes, I was asked to do this by another bored member. The things i assert are, from my experience, those which will minimise trouble at the scrum; they will not stop all collapses because they can occur accidentally and some props cannot resist the urge to cheat. Nevertheless, I do believe that if you can get these established you will have a much easier afternoon:-

Brian

Many thanks for that. There are some very straight forward, easy to follow pointers there.

I will try some (maybe not all just yet), of these next weekend and see what happens.

Do you (or Robbie) mind if I copy these to our training officer for consideration?

Phil