Experiences of Crouch-Bind-Set-Yes 9

[Adam]

So today I had my first game under the new scrum laws. Context was a very local derby; black (L7) vs. Blue (L8, relegated last season), with two teams known to have interesting disciplinary records. Final score was 7-0 to Black.


What I found today was:
- the players still try to make a hit
- more padded front row players will complain that the calls are too slow as it has changed from a weight contest to a more skillful core stability effort
- delaying the 'yes 9' call is effective in allowing the scrum to settle and remain stationary and square
- beware of teams who will start their shove on 'yes 9', not when the ball is put in
- scrum halves struggle to put the ball in straight, despite PMB and FKs
- teams who take the time to invite referees down benefit from it and are more compliant
- winning scrums against the head are more commonplace now

Once bound, the front rows sort of lean on each other between 'bind' and 'set'. Is this a problem?

Personally I found it is a good change for us as referees as it has separated out the three principle things we look at: binding; the hit/engagement; and the put in. It allows us to check these more effectively.

What have other people found with the scrum?

 

[Mike Whittaker]

Very clear assessment of the current state of play Adam. Not at all unlike the trial games I have watched at similar levels.
An excellent opportunity for refs to show their man management skills without relying on prescriptive procedures.
The skillful front rows will be able to captitalise on the rediscovery of 'hooking' and the good refs will be able to demonstrate their competence by enabling that skill to be demonstrated by applying the law as intended.

 

[Browner]

So today I had my first game under the new scrum laws. Context was a very local derby; black (L7) vs. Blue (L8, relegated last season), with two teams known to have interesting disciplinary records. Final score was 7-0 to Black.


What I found today was:
- the players still try to make a hit
- more padded front row players will complain that the calls are too slow as it has changed from a weight contest to a more skillful core stability effort
- delaying the 'yes 9' call is effective in allowing the scrum to settle and remain stationary and square
- beware of teams who will start their shove on 'yes 9', not when the ball is put in
- scrum halves struggle to put the ball in straight, despite PMB and FKs
- teams who take the time to invite referees down benefit from it and are more compliant
- winning scrums against the head are more commonplace now

Once bound, the front rows sort of lean on each other between 'bind' and 'set'. Is this a problem?

Personally I found it is a good change for us as referees as it has separated out the three principle things we look at: binding; the hit/engagement; and the put in. It allows us to check these more effectively.

What have other people found with the scrum?

Interesting Adam, .............. Did you notice props repositioning their bind arm long, or did they simply maintain their pre-set handgrip position & end up with bent/levering elbows after the 'set'? Did you notice increased or decreased boreing or twisting? and did you have more or less scrum offences compared to last seasons experiences?

 

[Adam]

Interesting Adam, .............. Did you notice props repositioning their bind arm long, or did they simply maintain their pre-set handgrip position & end up with bent/levering elbows after the 'set'? Did you notice increased or decreased boreing or twisting? and did you have more or less scrum offences compared to last seasons experiences?

I noticed one LHP with his elbow down once engaged so I assume he didn't re-position his bind. Didn't penalise him for it as it never became material so just talked to him about it. Good point though and something to look at and work on next match.

I didn't think I gave (m)any PKs at scrum time and I don't remember a collapsed scrum. To be honest I think the players had enough on their plate getting used to the new scrum calls. Saying that there were a few instances of the front rows taking each other down to a low level, but nothing touching the ground and they didn't collapse so played on. Another thing to be wary of in future matches.

I gave quite a few FKs for not straight put ins, but otherwise the scrums went fine and I had no real issues.

The number eights still wanted to slingshot in at the start but I think later on they realised there wasn't much point in that any more.

 

[taff426]

I've now refereed two games with the new scrum procedure, both with different challenges.

In the first game the scrum was a shambles! Both front rows could not grasp the fact that they could not push until the ball came in, if they weren't driving as soon as they had 'set', they would drive as soon as I said "Yes 9". Needless to say after 4 scrubs this became rather tiresome!!!!!!! I then came up with a technically incorrect analogy for the scrum, however, it seemed to do the trick. I told both FR's that to all intents and purposes, the scrims are basically uncontested until the ball is fed in by the 9. As I said, the cynically incorrect, however, it seemed to help the situation. The situation wasn't helped by both coaches stating after the game they had been coaching their players to win the 'hit' as soon as the engage was given. I tried to educate then that there is no such thing as the hit and engage, but they would not listen.........

Luckily the FR's in the second game grasped that fact, the problem in this game was trying to get the 9 to not feed the ball until I told him, which resulted in 3 FK's each side for this offence.

After yesterday's game I spoke to both coaches, and they raised a very valid point in my opinion. We as Referees all seem to zero in on the FR, however, ask yourself, where does the power realistically come from in the Scrum? The Second Row! We are briefing the FR's as part of our pre match briefs, but has anyone really taken the time to explain the new laws to the second row? Judging by my experiences so far, I would say this is a big fat no. Due to this, I am going to ensure I brief the second rows of the procedure for the first few games of the season, just to ensure they are fully aware with the laws.

I then spent the next 20 mins discussing their ideas for resolving the second row early drive. There were a number of ideas, all of which would not/could not be used, with one of their ideas being to keep the second row on one knee until the ball is fed in, to which I replied, in that case I would not let the 9 feed the ball in until they were up due to the fact that scrum would not be set until all 16 pax involved were in a position to drive once the ball is in.

The only way to resolve this idea in my mind is to revert to a FR leader, just like I used to employ when I was hooking, have your prop on the side of the out in shout ready, ready, ready until the ball comes in, then shout the obligatory NOW!!!!!!! This then leaves none of your team in doubt as to when the ball is in and you can drive....

 

[Ian_Cook]

I don't like the "Yes 9" aspect of the new scrum engagement. It gives the opposing side a heads up as to when the ball is coming in, thereby losing some of the advantage of having the throw in. It also encourages the tight-five to push early.

In the "old days" it was the hooker who indicated that he was ready to have the ball in by tapping his lucy on the shoulder as a signal to the SH. The SH and the hooker would have a pre-arranged cadence, something like TAP - TAP - IN.

IMO, the "Yes 9" should be an invitation to feed the scrum, not an instruction to do so.

From what I have seen so far in last niughts test and this weekend's ITM Cup matches in NZ, referees are still getting SH to put the ball in when the scrum is still moving and not square

 

[crossref]

But which is it? 'yes 9' is it an instruction or an invitation?

It's still not mentioned in the irb or RFU website.

This is the problem with making up protocols on the fly and not trialling them..

 

[taff426]

Crossref take a look at this link, especially para 3, it'll answer your question

http://www.armyrugbyunion.org.uk/wp...rs-Coaches-and-Referee-Update-August-2013.pdf

 

[taff426]

I don't like the "Yes 9" aspect of the new scrum engagement. It gives the opposing side a heads up as to when the ball is coming in, thereby losing some of the advantage of having the throw in. It also encourages the tight-five to push early.

In the "old days" it was the hooker who indicated that he was ready to have the ball in by tapping his lucy on the shoulder as a signal to the SH. The SH and the hooker would have a pre-arranged cadence, something like TAP - TAP - IN.

IMO, the "Yes 9" should be an invitation to feed the scrum, not an instruction to do so.

From what I have seen so far in last niughts test and this weekend's ITM Cup matches in NZ, referees are still getting SH to put the ball in when the scrum is still moving and not square

The 'Yes 9' is only an invitation, therefore, the putting in team still have an element of surprise (all be it very small) with which to feed the ball in

 

[crossref]

Crossref take a look at this link, especially para 3, it'll answer your question

http://www.armyrugbyunion.org.uk/wp...rs-Coaches-and-Referee-Update-August-2013.pdf

it does -- the RFU really should publish that document. Seriously.

given Ian's post above. I wonder if it is in line with ARFU advice.

 

[taff426]

The info was e-mailed out to all societies as far as I am aware. We in the Army Referee Society got it that way. It was e-mailed to our Hon. Sec. And cascaded out.

From that and other literature I have read it would appear they have given feedback to the IRB and the link I gave was the feedback they got from the IRB. Of course, that's how I'm reading it, I may well be talking out of my buttocks.........

In either case, the form you have just read cleared up any issues/queries I had before my first game thankfully

 

[Phil E]

it does -- the RFU really should publish that document. Seriously.

given Ian's post above. I wonder if it is in line with ARFU advice.

It has been disseminated through the usual channels. In Warwickshire it was sent to all clubs and the Society. We in turn sent it to all referees, CrefCs, etc.

You won't have got it because you are on the RFU blacklist! :wink:

 

[Phil E]

The info was e-mailed out to all societies as far as I am aware. We in the Army Referee Society got it that way. It was e-mailed to our Hon. Sec. And cascaded out.

fftopic:
Taff, heading your way in September for the Royal Signals 10s competition at Cardiff Harlequins. Cripes, Wales and Army :Nerv:
fftopic:

 

[crossref]

It has been disseminated through the usual channels. In Warwickshire it was sent to all clubs and the Society. We in turn sent it to all referees, CrefCs, etc.

You won't have got it because you are on the RFU blacklist! :wink:

well, it's first time I have seen it.... and it's not here http://www.rfu.com/scrumtrial where it should be.

 

[taff426]

Phil, that'll be interesting for you if their 10's are anything to go by....... Good luck, I think you may need it!!!!!!

Crossers, that would be far too easy then ha ha

 

[Phil E]

Crossref
As I said, it was sent out by the RFU to all CBs and Societies.
Maybe you should be asking the question to your society?

Having read the RFU scrum trial page on their website, I am not going to keep going back to it just in case they post any amendments, but I am going to read what I am sent by email.

 

[Simon Thomas]

It has been disseminated through the usual channels. In Warwickshire it was sent to all clubs and the Society. We in turn sent it to all referees, CrefCs, etc.

You won't have got it because you are on the RFU blacklist! :wink:

it is as Taff descibes it. Consultation between RFU (and other home Unions) and IRB and after the IRB meeting in France, the linked RFU announcement was sent the next day to Elite, Panel, Group and Societies, all CBs, and thus all clubs.

KML1 will be running through it tomorrow evening at Winchester RFC at our pre-season Society meeting.

crossref is right that it should be on the RFU's scrum trial site, and I have asked RFU to add it.

 

[taff426]

Going slightly off topic, but take a look........ Ok for a giggle!!!!

http://balls.ie/rugby/george-clancy-takes-on-brian-moore-in-scrum-challenge/

 

[Phil E]

KML1 will be running through it tomorrow evening at Winchester RFC at our ore-season Society meeting.

I will be doing the same at Earlsdon RFC tomorrow evening for Warwickshire's first Society meeting, this will be followed over the coming week by 4 RFU scrum workshops throughout he county.

After the meeting I will be emailing bullet point advice and the RFU link to all our referees and club referees, for those who are on holiday and can't make the meeting.

Both KML1 and I will be employing the skills we recently picked up on our RFU Educators course :wink:

 

[OB..]

it does -- the RFU really should publish that document. Seriously.

given Ian's post above. I wonder if it is in line with ARFU advice.

It has been cascaded down from the RFU (to me, via my society).