[Scrum] Calling 'use it' at a scrum

[notoriouspb]

Hi,

Sincere apologies if this has been posted before,but several times during the world cup, where an attacking team had a scrum close to the opposition's try line (I believe Tonga vs NZ was one?) and had gained 2 scrum penalties, so were looking at possible card/penalty try situations, the attacking team (Tonga) had the upper hand again, when were suddenly ordered to 'use it' by the referee. Is this a valid call? I'm pretty certain it happened at least 3 ties, and by possibly higher echelon refs eg Nigel Davies. If so, why should they use it? They are going forward, have the opposition 'on the rack', and cannot surely gain by getting the ball out when they wish to keep it in?

 

[Dickie E]

Hi notoriouspb and welcome to the forum.

No need to apologise for raising a recurring issue (not that I think this is one) - we do it all the time.

And a very good question/observation. As far as I am aware the 'use it' protocol applies to rucks & mauls to prevent teams winding down the clock. I don't think it applies to scrums.

I imagine a ref may call it when a scrum is partially collapsed and the ball is clearly available.

 

[crossref]

I think this is the legal justification

e)

When a scrum remains stationary and the ball does not emerge immediately a further scrum is ordered at the place of the stoppage. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage.

(f)

When a scrum becomes stationary and does not start moving immediately, the ball must emerge immediately. If it does not a further scrum will be ordered. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage


A chance to use it is better for everyone than another scrum

 

[Taff]

I think this is the legal justification

20.4 (e) When a scrum remains stationary and the ball does not emerge immediately a further scrum is ordered at the place of the stoppage. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage.

20.4 (f)When a scrum becomes stationary and does not start moving immediately, the ball must emerge immediately. If it does not a further scrum will be ordered. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage

A chance to use it is better for everyone than another scrum

A bit like the maul laws then. Makes sense to me.

I've seen Refs call "Use it" when the scrum is in danger of turning past the 90 degrees. It always struck me as a brilliant idea.

 

[The Fat]

There is a memo/guidance somewhere.
Will have a look for it when I get a bit of time.
Bloody work.

 

[Chris_j]

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9

[h=1]Communication - Law 20.4(e,f)[/h]

1. If scrum is or becomes stationary
2. If ball is available (No. 8 feet)
3. The referee will call “use it”

 

[crossref]

Sigh, all these additional Laws that are not in the Law book....

 

[Chris_j]

Sigh, all these additional Laws that are not in the Law book....

I was just agreeing with your post #3 and supporting it with the latest from that source of wisdom that is World Rugby.

 

[menace]

I know I've used it.. (Pardon the pun)

As explained above...I've asked the 8/9 to use it because the scrum has stopped or is turning dangerously close to 90 but they have control of the ball. It gives them an opportunity to use it before they lose it!

 

[Chris_j]

"Use it" isn't in the law book, but it is good management to use it, thereby encouraging compliance with 20.4 e and f

 

[Taff]

Crossref has a point. WHY isn't it in the lawbook?

 

[Phil E]

Crossref has a point. WHY isn't it in the lawbook?

Because it's a management technique not a law.

 

[crossref]

Because it's a management technique not a law.

just as for a maul or ruck -- where it IS in the Law book...

also it says WILL

[LAWS]Communication - Law 20.4(e,f)

1.If scrum is or becomes stationary
2.If ball is available (No. 8 feet)
3.The referee will call “use it”[/LAWS]

which seems to make it a bit stronger than just a technique ..

I am hoping the real answer is that this new process at scrums was invented in May 2015, and it WILL appear in the 2016 Law Book.

 

[OB..]

Crossref has a point. WHY isn't it in the lawbook?

Why should it be? It is not mandatory, just an example of good communication. I can't find "Red 7, release", or ""Advantage Blue, penalty advantage" in the law book, yet such communication is widespread.

 

[crossref]

Why should it be? It is not mandatory, just an example of good communication. I can't find "Red 7, release", or ""Advantage Blue, penalty advantage" in the law book, yet such communication is widespread.

IN THE LAW BOOK

[LAWS]16.7 (c) When the ball has been clearly won by a team at a ruck and the ball is available to be played the referee will call "Use it!" after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball at the ruck is awarded the throw-in.[/LAWS]

[LAWS]17.6 (g) When the ball is available to be played the referee will call "Use it!" after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball is awarded the throw-in.[/LAWS]

NOT IN THE LAW BOOK

Communication - Law 20.4(e,f)
1.If scrum is or becomes stationary
2.If ball is available (No. 8 feet)
3.The referee will call “use it”

I don't really see the difference.

The best reason for putting it in the Law book is so that people will find it ....

 

[didds]

because law 16 is about the ruck, and law 17 is about the maul.

law 20 covers the scrum and its not in there.


If its in 16 & 17 and not 20, then what about the argument that says it is deliberately not in law 20? Otherwise why have it in law 17, as the cross referenced guessing could just reason that its already in law 16.

is it really that difficult to print a set aof laws that doesn't require cross referencing and guesses, that may actually be out of context?

didds

 

[Dave Sherwin]

Depending on level of the game, I'll actually mention this to 9s at the PMB. As in, "If the scrum becomes static and it doesn't look like we're going anywhere, or if we're about to go round 90 I'll give you a shout - let's look to use it straight away in those circumstances, ok, otherwise I have to reset and give them the ball." Every now and then I get a, "Really?" but most of the time this is accepted.

I don't generally like law summaries in the PMB, but I find this one helpful at a certain level.

 

[Pegleg]

20.4 (e) & 20.4 (f) covers the "legal requirement" perhaps WR (IRB) think we are inteligent enough to see the consistancy of application?

Yes it might be "helpful" to get all the anomalies in the law book sorted. But we have bigger problems than these.

 

[OB..]

is it really that difficult to print a set aof laws that doesn't require cross referencing and guesses, that may actually be out of context?

We have to deal with what we are given, knowing that it is flawed.

I have said many times that we need to know the laws but agree how to apply them where there are ambiguities, etc. Trying to draw subtle inferences from the wording is usually unhelpful, because they are deliberately not written to that sort of standard. (I doubt if any of you would be happy if they were written to the same standards as Statutes. And even then they have problems.)

 

[crossref]

Yes it might be "helpful" to get all the anomalies in the law book sorted. But we have bigger problems than these.

on then other hand the IRB are constantly tinkering with the Laws / Clarifications / Guidance / Management so evidently they think there are problems to fix.

having everything in one place would be a good way to start, might help to achieve consistency across referees