Australia v Argentina

[Phil E]

I always tell the SH at the brief, not to put it in until I am happy the scrum is square and stable, AND I have then given him the signal. The signal may be an invitation, the instruction not to proceed until I have given it, is not.

First time he does it "we spoke about this at the brief, not until I give you the signal please, reset same put in".
Second time he does it FK.

Had to do it about three times, never ever been questioned about it by coaches, SH's or assessors.
I can't (and won't) allow a player to continually ignore my instructions. On top of which it's a safety issue, I want to make sure the scrum is square, stable and SAFE, before I allow play to progress.

Lot's of things referees do can't be justified by a specific law, why pick on this one?

 

[crossref]

So, he can just make it up himself if it isn't in the Laws, and that's OK?

but the IRB haven't specified what they want to happen after an early put in, so whatever decision the referee makes (play on / reset / FK / PK) is 'making up the Law', the IRB have left us with no choice but make it up.

Most people here have said that first time it happens = reset. Second time = escalate.
I agree with that
In the Argentina game, of course, we don't know if it was first time or second.

 

[The Fat]

Lot's of things referees do can't be justified by a specific law, why pick on this one?

I don't recall seeing Glen Jackson chat the SH for feeding early at any other scrum during the game in question. I agree with this,
"First time he does it "we spoke about this at the brief, not until I give you the signal please, reset same put in".
Second time he does it FK.", which is what I would have thought to be a fair way for Glen Jackson to handle it as well.

 

[crossref]

I don't recall seeing Glen Jackson chat the SH for feeding early at any other scrum during the game in question. I agree with this,
"First time he does it "we spoke about this at the brief, not until I give you the signal please, reset same put in".
Second time he does it FK.", which is what I would have thought to be a fair way for Glen Jackson to handle it as well.

but unless you have ref-link and can hear the sound track it would be very easy to miss a warning.
If there were no re-sets prior to that - another possibility might be an earlier throw in that was borderline early which he let go, but subsequently had a word, which was the warning.

OR perhaps he did siply go straight to free kick.

 

[Phil E]

Maybe it happened like the mythical story of the ref who marched into the changing rooms pre-match and said,

"Some of you may be under the impression that I have to give a warning before I issue a Yellow Card.......consider yourselves all warned!"

:biggrin:

 

[crossref]

or some one in the two teams might have asked him conversationally - what's the sanction, Glen, if a scrum-half puts the ball in early, and Glen replied, without really thinking about it : 'well, that would be a FK'

then when it happens in the 79th minute of game .... ouch. he has to give that kick

 

[Browner]

And there was me thinking that we were trying to get away from bloody resets.!?!

If the SH has waited for ( and thereby previously diligently complied with ) the referee giving him a non verbal signal for the whole of the previous 79 mins, then I have no absolutely no sympathy for his cock up in the 79th mins.

The notion that at that time of the match you suddenly start giving warnings for stuff that has been perfectly adopted up til now....! ! ! Really?.

At this stage of the game teams that maintain their discipline/compliance will always come off better than those who don't.



Reset, wait for my signal please 9, .......
then reset, don't push early please locks,
oh no...reset ....now come on hookers keep your feet out of the tunnel as you have for the last 79 mins please,
reset ....cmon players the scrum is moving sideways off the mark - up we get lets give another go please ,
oh fricken hell, now the front rows have collapsed reset again !!!! ..........

Please please please players I really am trying to avoid blowing my whistle in the last min of the game , try and help me out !

( sarc)

 

[OB..]

I think it is a long bow to draw that putting the ball into a scrum before the ref has "authorised" the no 9 to do so is not respecting the authority of the ref and in breach of 10.4 (s)

It might be at my levels, but not at international level. That scrum half has been through the process many times, Why he infringed, I don't know, but I am certain he knew the protocol. Why the sympathy?

 

[OB..]

I agree, they're trying to get it in quickly to get on with it. IMO this causes more trouble that waiting.

Also, I see a lot of "jostling" and twisting going on before the throw-in. I think we are seeing the reappearance of FR forwards trying to get the upper hand before the ball is put in to give them an advantage when the shove comes on. Its time referees were instructed to penalise any FR forward who does anything other stand passively and bound waiting for the ball to be thrown in.

Crouch
Touch
Set

Stand still - NO pushing, NO pulling, NO turning, NO twisting.

Then the ball goes in....

If you can pack steadily and in a stable fashion against a scrum-machine, you can do it against a live opposing scrum. I see it an grass-roots level; I see no reason why it cannot happen at elite level.

I call it "churning". It is something I have picked up and commented on in both my games so far this season. It doesn't happen at every scrum, but should not happen at any of them

 

[Dixpat]

It might be at my levels, but not at international level. That scrum half has been through the process many times, Why he infringed, I don't know, but I am certain he knew the protocol. Why the sympathy?

Its not sympathy

I thought it a terrible look to end an international on

I looked up the laws of the game and couldn't find where the ref's call was supported by the laws so asked the question

From what I read from others responses it seems that a ref is a lawmaker on the run

 

[crossref]

From what I read from others responses it seems that a ref is a lawmaker on the run

unfortunately there is an element of truth in that.

- We referees are applying a protocol that is not documented on the IRB Laws website, and is not followed on the IRB videos that are supposed to be there to show the correct scrum sequence

- If the protocol is not followed we are having to use our own judgement on what sanction to apply, as the IRB has not specified it.

Sadly this is just the way that the IRB - and the RFU - like to do things. Don't blame the refs!

(the protocol was set out in writing, in email cascades)

 

[Pegleg]

The ref was relying [I assume] on law 20.5

Throwing the ball into the scrum
No Delay. As soon as the front rows have come together, the scrum half must throw in the ball without delay. The scrum half must throw in the ball when told to do so by the referee. The scrum half must throw in the ball from the side of the scrum first chosen.

My reading of the law is that there is nothing in the law to say he must wait for the ref's instruction to fed. He is obliged to fed without delay and also to do so if instructed by the ref

Where is he obliged to wait for the ref to tell him to do so

If he MUST do it when told how can he do it before? If he's already done it he can't now comply.It would probably be better if 20.5 was reordered thus:

No Delay: As soon as the front rows have come together, the scrum half must throw in the ball when told to do so by the referee. The scrum half must throw in the ball without delay.

 

[chbg]

The televised scrum:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcgsxByyaJM&list=UUgQXAHdKEU0AA-mx-tGRnxQ

It seems to me that the Referee (rightly) considers that the scrum is not steady enough, with Argentina applying most pressure. Hence the premature put in is definitely to Argentina's favour. It is probably borderline+ early push, which would have been penalised if the ball had not been put in prematurely.

 

[Ian_Cook]

If he MUST do it when told how can he do it before? If he's already done it he can't now comply.It would probably be better if 20.5 was reordered thus:

No Delay: As soon as the front rows have come together, the scrum half must throw in the ball when told to do so by the referee. The scrum half must throw in the ball without delay.

In the long run, it would be even better to dispense with 20.5 altogether, as it conflicts with 20.1 (g) and (j)

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I know he hasn't blown his own "I told you so" trumpet but I'm sure I recall OB.. suggesting 20.5 would cause an issue sooner or later if left unmodified to sit along side CBSY9 or CBS Poke/wave/point.

 

[Pegleg]

In the long run, it would be even better to dispense with 20.5 altogether, as it conflicts with 20.1 (g) and (j)

20.5 THROWING THE BALL INTO THE SCRUM
Then take out the first bit and the fit together just fine.
20.5 (As amended )

No Delay: The scrum half must throw in the ball when told to do so by the referee. The scrum half must throw in the ball without delay.
Sanction: Free Kick

 

[RobLev]

The televised scrum:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcgsxByyaJM&list=UUgQXAHdKEU0AA-mx-tGRnxQ

It seems to me that the Referee (rightly) considers that the scrum is not steady enough, with Argentina applying most pressure. Hence the premature put in is definitely to Argentina's favour. It is probably borderline+ early push, which would have been penalised if the ball had not been put in prematurely.

The ref says at one point as the srcum is breaking up "I never said Yes 9...moving"; what's the secondary signal he's giving, though? I can't find it on the IRB website.

On a different issue - on Clip 4 from that game, the ref penalises a squint feed...

 

[Browner]

The ref says at one point as the srcum is breaking up "I never said Yes 9...moving"; what's the secondary signal he's giving, though? I can't find it on the IRB website.

Seems to be a 'ball put in' jabbing indication/ motion , maybe a 'secret' trial signal ?!

Interestingly the irb video in 20.5 doesn't help , in more ways than one!

Hmmnn, is (#21) the orig SH?

& did the referee 'nod' just prior to the feed? .....did this confuse cubelli ?