Bath Vs Wasps 8.1.21

[crossref]

but none of those are defined in the good book

yes, but standardised and widespread ---- and useful

there are a lot of signals widely used, but not in the book.

'play on' I think is very useful, let's everyone know that you did see [whatever it was] and judged no offence. Builds confidence (as opposed to remaining schtum and leaving them guessing)

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

yes, but standardised and widespread ---- and useful

I just discovered my problem, I don't speak English like you. Our use of standard if different.

Those "signals" you mention, I would call prompts. And they are not "standardised", they are commonplace. Standardised to me would be codified or approved by some authority.

there are a lot of signals widely used, but not in the book.

The signals for rugby refs are codified, your "signals" are clues or guidance. I used "signals" in my previous color use post as mock the suggestion of a standard signal for off side. Poor tactic on my part.

yes, but standardised and widespread ---- and useful

How do you know they are widespread? They may well be, but I doubt "play on" is used in Argentina

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I just discovered my problem, I don't speak English like you. Our use of standard if different.

Those "signals" you mention, I would call prompts. And they are not "standardised", they are commonplace. Standardised to me would be codified or approved by some authority.



The signals for rugby refs are codified, your "signals" are clues or guidance. I used "signals" in my previous color use post as mock the suggestion of a standard signal for off side. Poor tactic on my part.




How do you know they are widespread? They may well be, but I doubt "play on" is used in Argentina

The play on "signal" is the same as that used in (pinched from) Association Football so I'd suspect if it's not used in Argentina then it would be recognised if it was.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

The play on "signal" is the same as that used in (pinched from) Association Football so I'd suspect if it's not used in Argentina then it would be recognised if it was.

tocar or jugar

 

[Balones]

tocar or jugar

I doubt they would use ‘tocar’ even in Argentina because it is used in the context of playing music. Even ‘play the whistle’ would be stretching things!

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I doubt they would use ‘tocar’ even in Argentina because it is used in the context of playing music. Even ‘play the whistle’ would be stretching things!

yep, I understand the Argentines would probably use the standardised and widespread "play on" "signal".

 

[crossref]

Luke Pearce today, signalling line out still in progress by holding both arms in the air, like a 'six' signal in cricket ..

 

[Flish]

Luke Pearce today, signalling line out still in progress by holding both arms in the air, like a 'six' signal in cricket ..

Yup, and seen similar in other games, far more positive signals to hold the back line, and I’d argue for longer too, been a few mauls on the LOT that have have the backs held back longer than normal - so something they’re focussing on.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I'm wrong there are five signals

ENDING A LINEOUT

The lineout ends when:
The ball or a player in possession of the ball:

leaves the lineout; or

enters the area between the touchline and the five-metre line; or

goes beyond the 15-metre line.




A ruck or maul forms and all of the feet of all of the players in the ruck or maul move beyond the mark of touch.
The ball becomes unplayable.

Or perhaps we can continue to hold their hand and put the offside onus on the ref

None of those are signals.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

None of those are signals.

Righto, they are cues. Signals are not necessary

 

[Marc Wakeham]

You just seems to want to be at odds with the world. If signalling to players etc is not a signal fair enough. The may not be "official" (rugby law) signals but they are most definately signals

 

[Balones]

I think it is best to not see them as ‘signals’ but rather as ‘communication’. How a referee feels about what is the most effective means of communication for them is up to the individual. If players are not sure what the referee means by his communication then they can always ask for clarification. In my mind there are official signals and signals that are an aid to communication and referees must be able to have the flexibility to use what suits them in the particular circumstances they find themselves. I.e. At grassroots an arm out to the side doesn’t work if you are standing at the front of the lineout.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

You just seems to want to be at odds with the world. If signalling to players etc is not a signal fair enough. The may not be "official" (rugby law) signals but they are most definately signals

I think the early post or OP was a idea that a signal should be a standard to indicate end of L/O. I do not want to take thinking and understanding of law away from players and place the determining factor for players on the indication from a referee. Nor do I want to continue to add obligation to a referee.

You just seems to want to be at odds with the world.

You are mostly correct. Just when the world is impractical, illogical, and irrational. So yes, I guess I am. Psychologically, I have a high likely of irritability probably from low serotonin levels associated with German ancestry. I understand it, but it affords me to examine unintended consequences of changes that occur, like a referee standardized signal to show end of lineout while there are plenty of indicators already available.

sorry for long line of BS, the idea of individual referee indicators to show EOLO is divine, but to standardize it devoid.

 

[crossref]

Andrew Brace going for the horizontal arms signal ..

I am perfectly happy with some refs doing a signal, others not as per their preferences

But for those who are signalling, FFS let's all use the same signal

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I think it is best to not see them as ‘signals’ but rather as ‘communication’. How a referee feels about what is the most effective means of communication for them is up to the individual. If players are not sure what the referee means by his communication then they can always ask for clarification. In my mind there are official signals and signals that are an aid to communication and referees must be able to have the flexibility to use what suits them in the particular circumstances they find themselves. I.e. At grassroots an arm out to the side doesn’t work if you are standing at the front of the lineout.

A signal is a method of communication:

SIGNAL Definition:
a gesture, action, or sound that is used to convey information or instructions, typically by prearrangement between the parties concerned.

- - - Updated - - -

Andrew Brace going for the horizontal arms signal ..

I am perfectly happy with some refs doing a signal, others not as per their preferences


But for those who are signalling, FFS let's all use the same signal

Agreed.

 

[Flish]

Andrew Brace going for the horizontal arms signal ..

I am perfectly happy with some refs doing a signal, others not as per their preferences

But for those who are signalling, FFS let's all use the same signal

Which one are we going with then, 1 arm up or two arms out ‘holding’ them back?

 

[Balones]

Wayne Barnes used arms out and pointed fingers mostly today. But then he was always in midfield. Where are you always going to stand at your level?
Three of the penalty calls at lineouts came from his ARs because he was unsighted.

 

[crossref]

Where are you always going to stand at your level?

mostly at the front

 

[Flish]

Front, in the 5m channel to start, mostly, so a single arm is probably, most effective

 

[Decorily]

Front, in the 5m channel to start, mostly, so a single arm is probably, most effective

Just as long as you don't use the arm that blocks some of the view of the action!