Experience with the non-verbal

[Browner]

It wasn't used for the finesse pieces! Quite effective in catching the opposition off guard though.
Same way that they did it last season (they haven't forgotten all their old tricks!). Scrummie taps hookers hand, he squeezes props in, second row get their signal and off we go (all timed very well) so we get a lovely straight feed and them driving over.

What you've actually got is one side being able to get their squeeze/shove/nudge on before the other , because they have advance notice of when the ball is about to be fed .....

. This 'timing' is as unfair as striking early or feeding crooked in my opinion....... Historical and well practiced granted but why shouldnt the ball be fed and both hookers have a more equal chance to win possession (nearer being the only unavoidable head start) ?

 

[Beanz]

Had two games over the weekend, no problem with a level 9 league game on Sat.
But in an U17's county league game on Sunday I had the SH from the non putting-in side tapping his hooker and prop when I had tapped the back of the SH putting the ball in to make them aware when the ball was about to enter the scrum, do we need to manage this??

 

[Browner]

Had two games over the weekend, no problem with a level 9 league game on Sat.
But in an U17's county league game on Sunday I had the SH from the non putting-in side tapping his hooker and prop when I had tapped the back of the SH putting the ball in to make them aware when the ball was about to enter the scrum, do we need to manage this??

That's very smart , and very close to my point. If the non feeding pack get equal notice of ball arriving ,how can that ever be unequitable?

Earlier notice no !!!!!!!! , but if non feeding SH taps his hooker at the same time that the feeding SH taps his..... Then what'sthe issue?. None IMO.

 

[TheBFG]

But in an U17's county league game on Sunday I had the SH from the non putting-in side tapping his hooker and prop when I had tapped the back of the SH putting the ball in to make them aware when the ball was about to enter the scrum, do we need to manage this??

is that any different than a smart 2nd row (yes there are some out there) working out the lineout calls and letting his team know where the ball is going?

I don't think you can do anything about this UNLESS it becomes a problem with an early shove/strike.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Had two games over the weekend, no problem with a level 9 league game on Sat.
But in an U17's county league game on Sunday I had the SH from the non putting-in side tapping his hooker and prop when I had tapped the back of the SH putting the ball in to make them aware when the ball was about to enter the scrum, do we need to manage this??

I'd say no. By virtue of the fact there is a scrum the hooker et al know the ball is about to enter the scrum. If they are trying to pre-empt it with a push then if the SH doesn't throw it in immediately he is "tapped" then the oppos are likely to get FK'd for an early push.

Having said all that I have not reffed under the revamped SES and won't for a while. The referee I watched on Saturday didn't seem too phased by it all. He did the signal from both sides of the scrum (as in the non put in side) and all looked ok. Then again there never was a great deal of trouble at lower levels.

 

[winchesterref]

Had two games over the weekend, no problem with a level 9 league game on Sat.
But in an U17's county league game on Sunday I had the SH from the non putting-in side tapping his hooker and prop when I had tapped the back of the SH putting the ball in to make them aware when the ball was about to enter the scrum, do we need to manage this??

I don't think so, they aren't doing anything wrong.

 

[crossref]

Had two games over the weekend, no problem with a level 9 league game on Sat.
But in an U17's county league game on Sunday I had the SH from the non putting-in side tapping his hooker and prop when I had tapped the back of the SH putting the ball in to make them aware when the ball was about to enter the scrum, do we need to manage this??

surely this fine.
I'd imagin this it's more likely to produce an early strike than an early push

 

[Phil E]

Level 8 league game Saturday.
One team was aware of the new protocol/directive, the other wasn't.
In the game absolutely no problem for the teams and no hint of an early shove, so maybe it's working.

The only problem was with me stepping too far away from the SH a couple of times and having to stretch to give him the tap.

Overall, very positive.

 

[irishref]

my first game, after the Dutch union finally decided to adopt the new directive, was a top level ladies game (repeat of last year's final). I for sure was not going to be touching anyone. I used the hand signal when at the far side and "move away from the tunnel when I'm satisfied" when I was on the putting in side.

Scrums were very keenly contested but no issues at all with it. A couple of weeks later I did have to ask a male scrum half to stop trying to barge me out of the way and that, as contained in my PMB, would unblock the tunnel as his signal when I was satisfied we were straight and square and only then!

 

[menace]

A couple of weeks later I did have to ask a male scrum half to stop trying to barge me out of the way and that, as contained in my PMB, would unblock the tunnel as his signal when I was satisfied we were straight and square and only then!

ASk??? WTF ...straight :noyc::noyc::noyc: IMO

Your PMB was his 'ask' and 'tell' warnings!

 

[matty1194]

"move away from the tunnel when I'm satisfied"

A couple of weeks later I did have to ask a male scrum half to stop trying to barge me out of the way and that, as contained in my PMB, would unblock the tunnel as his signal when I was satisfied we were straight and square and only then!

I had a chat with a U18 SH last night after my finals game who in his words stated that "he wished the IRB would make up their bloody minds" as in my PMB I told him it was back to "yes 9" for his put in request as per the SRU requirements for U19 variations.

We talked after the game and he said that with all the changes he never knew whether he was coming or going. He much preferred a referee to be out of the tunnel so as soon as it was stable he could get the ball in straight(er) rather than waiting for a ref to get out of the way which could destabilize it again.

I told him that it never bothered me either way but i preferred being further back from the scrum as it does allow you to see more of what else is going on around the area rather than being stuck 6-12" away waiting to tap a 9 on the shoulder, I am very happy with what the dark arts are having grown up in that place so being further back I can still confidently call faults.

 

[Ian_Cook]

This 'timing' is as unfair as striking early or feeding crooked in my opinion....... Historical and well practiced granted but why shouldnt the ball be fed and both hookers have a more equal chance to win possession (nearer being the only unavoidable head start) ?

Its their advantage because its their put in (because the OPPOSITION INFRINGED and the result was a scrum.) You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about the scrum having to be a fair AND equal contest. It doesn't. It only has to be "fair" not necessarily "equal". There is a difference. Fair is when I play Roger Federer in a tennis match. Its fair because we are both playing on the same court and we both have a tennis racquet. But its not equal by any stretch!

[LAWS]LAW 20 DEFINITIONS
The purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly, safely and fairly, after a minor infringement or a stoppage.[/LAWS]

Notice it says "fairly" not "equally"

 

[Browner]

Its their advantage because its their put in (because the OPPOSITION INFRINGED and the result was a scrum.) You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about the scrum having to be a fair AND equal contest. It doesn't. It only has to be "fair" not necessarily "equal". There is a difference. Fair is when I play Roger Federer in a tennis match. Its fair because we are both playing on the same court and we both have a tennis racquet. But its not equal by any stretch!

[LAWS]LAW 20 DEFINITIONS
The purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly, safely and fairly, after a minor infringement or a stoppage.[/LAWS]

Notice it says "fairly" not "equally"

What a crap comparison, He's better than you. A better comparison would be the 100m , One competitor gets a 'notice' that the gun is about to go off, resulting in him getting his feet out of the blocks before his opponent ! [hereafter to be known as "going on the 'B' of the Bonnet" The feed advantage is sufficient in having your hooker closer to the ball. That's enough. Additional notifications created additional advantages ....... I'm arguing that it is against the 'spirt' of the TLoTG.

 

[Toby Warren]

I don't like it. It makes you stand too close when on the putting in side - especially for us taller refs

 

[OB..]

I'm arguing that it is against the 'spirt' of the TLoTG.

I totally disagree, and strongly support Ian's view. The Laws describe the award of a scrum as a "sanction", which in that context means a punishment.

 

[Browner]

oh.....& ...... the opposition 'infringement' was likely a 'knock on' , from which they get one advantage of 'play' opportunity a second advantage of 'feed' & this third advantage of 'notice of the ball feed timing' , is disproportionate to a mere handling error me thinks.

 

[Browner]

The Laws describe the award of a scrum as a "sanction", which in that context means a punishment.

& having the opposition get the advantage of feed is sufficient punishment. Where does Law say one team gets a signal to give advance notice of feed to one side?

 

[Browner]

I don't like it. It makes you stand too close when on the putting in side - especially for us taller refs

conceptually, what's against you standing further back & the scrum half turning his head to see the same signal that you give when on the non feed side of the scrum......... in other words why is SH looking at the scrum so important, referee decides it's S&S enough not him & the 0.25s that it takes for him to turn back won't ruin things? ....just a thought.

 

[Jacko]

conceptually, what's against you standing further back & the scrum half turning his head to see the same signal that you give when on the non feed side of the scrum......... in other words why is SH looking at the scrum so important, referee decides it's S&S enough not him & the 0.25s that it takes for him to turn back won't ruin things? ....just a thought.

If it had been left to me to decide what I wanted to do, this is exactly what I would have gone with.

 

[Red Cap Ref]

That's a good thought Browner, I will try that on Sunday in a training match.