[Scrum] New scrum law- no signal from the referee?

[Ciaran Trainor]

Law 20.5 & 20.5 (d) 5
No signal from referee. The scrum-half must throw the ball in straight, but is allowed to align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, therefore allowing them to stand a shoulder width towards their own side of the middle line.
Rationale: To promote scrum stability, a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in.

How is no signal going to promote stability? At what point will you let the scrum half legally put the ball in? When he decides it's stable? If you don't think it's stable will you penalise him, the put in team or the opposition? Can't see how this will work.

 

[didds]

As ian said I don't really see how this is any different from what it has "always" been before the recent alteration.

The rub being the difference of opinion of whether the scrum is stable - especially if the put in is as immediate as the "set".

Anyway, it means I can return to the scrum timing concept I used to coach to weak scrummaging sides now, that the refs signal prevented.

didds

 

[VM75]

Law 20.5 & 20.5 (d) 5
No signal from referee. The scrum-half must throw the ball in straight, but is allowed to align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, therefore allowing them to stand a shoulder width towards their own side of the middle line.
Rationale: To promote scrum stability, a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in.

How is no signal going to promote stability?
At what point will you let the scrum half legally put the ball in?
When he decides it's stable?
If you don't think it's stable will you penalise him, the put in team or the opposition?
Can't see how this will work.

my 2p

How is no signal going to promote stability? the ball might be fed quicker & won quicker :shrug:?

At what point will you let the scrum half legally put the ball in?
We revert to Law 20.5 whilst omitting the referee 'saying so' [LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]20.5[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular] Throwing the ball into the scrum
[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]No Delay. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]As soon as the front rows have come together, the scrum half must throw in the ball without delay. [/FONT][/LAWS]

When he decides it's stable? yes, as it was pre-ref indicating

If you don't think it's stable will you penalise him, the put-in team or the opposition? i'd Sanction whoever is offending IF it's material

Can't see how this will work. I'm more confident.

 

[didds]

My query now is - what was wrong with the referee saying "now" - in reality? I'm not saying it was "right" - but having introduced it, what was so wrong they've now removed it? (aside from removing tactical timing of the put in)

didds

 

[Camquin]

Because all the law committee can do is introduce or remove laws.
So the scrums are a mess - fiddle with the laws.

Now we could try applying the laws we have - but apparently that is not an option.

Of course most of us manage to referee and the ball goes into the scrum and comes out and rugby happens.
But in the pro game scrums go to hell in a handcart - so we get experiments we do not need.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

My query now is - what was wrong with the referee saying "now" - in reality? I'm not saying it was "right" - but having introduced it, what was so wrong they've now removed it? (aside from removing tactical timing of the put in)

didds

I do not necessarily believe the following, but

1. In the world of equity, it discriminates against deaf players, and against mute referees.

2. Just as shouty lineout, players can shout "now" at moments to benefit themselves or to contrive a FK or PK

3. It removes judgment from players and reduces players intellectual involvement

4. It is silly and yet another added subjective moment to referees requirements

5. It rhymes with other commonly used rugby terms such as wow and thou.

6. In a womens game, the ref could offend players who thought he said cow or sow.

 

[ChrisR]

The whole idea of the CBS and the referee signal was to delay the ball until the scrum is SS & S. Was this strategy ineffective? Who was disadvantaged? Was it just a nuisance?

Previously the SH paid little heed to the stability of the scrum and most of the time the ball went in on 'Set'. My guess is this isn't a big issue below the top levels.

I do remember an international (a year or two ago) where the SH crouched to put it in and the front rows buckled but didn't go down. He stood back up to let the scrum stabilize and the ref FKd him for delay. Poor call in my opinion.

 

[OB..]

My query now is - what was wrong with the referee saying "now" - in reality? I'm not saying it was "right" - but having introduced it, what was so wrong they've now removed it? (aside from removing tactical timing of the put in)

didds

The argument was that the teams were using the call as a signal to start shoving.

(Yes, I agree the argument was false.)

 

[crossref]

The argument was that the teams were using the call as a signal to start shoving.

but the fix to that was to move from the verbal signal (now-9) to a non-verbal signal (pat on back)

In terms of what problem the new law (no-signal) is to solve - my guess is that the motivation is to remove the unwelcome need for referees to touch the players.

I have several times here argued that refs do not want to be touched or tapped by players, and the corollary to that is : the players should be be able to expect that they are not touched or tapped by the ref.

So I am very pleased that's gone. I'd have no problem going back to 'now-9' though.

 

[Camquin]

What is wrong with a thumbs up or a nod, which was used in the girls game to avoid contact.

 

[beckett50]

Muggers buddle if you ask me.

IIRC from the 'old days' the #9 would delay to create the instability and earn a FK or PK. Can see this happening again.

 

[crossref]

I think this will take us back to the 'hit' -- on 'bind' front rows will endeavour to bind as loosely as they can, maintaining as much distance as they can get away with, and then 'set' will become like the old 'engage' with teams hitting as hard as they can and the ball coming in immediately --

@didds - what will be you be coaching your teams to do ?

- - - Updated - - -

I think this will take us back to the 'hit' -- on 'bind' front rows will endeavour to bind as loosely as they can, maintaining as much distance as they can get away with, and then 'set' will become like the old 'engage' with teams hitting as hard as they can and the ball coming in immediately --

@didds - what will be you be coaching your teams to do ?

 

[didds]

Basically for squads with a reasonable scummage that is working I'll let them carry on as they have always done. for those young enough to have only ever known the ref instruction to put in, I'd just cover off the old fashioned tap on the hooker's hand/hooker flap for a timing signal.

For scrums that are really struggling with any sort of timing I developed a simple cadence system.

Idea is that on "set" the pack will chant 1-2-3-4 together. Not slowly, but with a smal gap between each number. Its way less than 2 seconds and probably just one really.

Then they have a code word with four unique letters - eg TEAM. Each letter corresponds to a number in the cadence.
i.e. 1=T, 2=E, 3=A, 4=M

So somebody will call a code wod and the initial of that word correspnds to a number. And the ball will come in on that number.

eg. Hooker calls "Apple ball". Apple => A => 3 in the word "TEAM".

ref: crouch -bind-set
scrum: (on set) 1-2-3
ball comes in as the call gets to 3.

didds

 

[ChrisR]

CR, I see it happening that way. That's why it will be important to get them ear-to-ear at the crouch.

 

[VM75]

RFU cascade

	20.5 Throwing the ball into the scrum	No signal from referee. The scrum must be stable and there must be no delay once the ball has been presented to the scrum.
Guidance Notes: The scrum half must ensure the scrum is stable before throwing in the ball.

 

[crossref]

Guidance Notes:
The scrum half must ensure the scrum is stable before throwing in the ball.

sanction -- Free Kick ??

 

[VM75]

Basically for squads with a reasonable scummage that is working I'll let them carry on as they have always done. for those young enough to have only ever known the ref instruction to put in, I'd just cover off the old fashioned tap on the hooker's hand/hooker flap for a timing signal.

For scrums that are really struggling with any sort of timing I developed a simple cadence system.

Idea is that on "set" the pack will chant 1-2-3-4 together. Not slowly, but with a smal gap between each number. Its way less than 2 seconds and probably just one really.

Then they have a code word with four unique letters - eg TEAM. Each letter corresponds to a number in the cadence.
i.e. 1=T, 2=E, 3=A, 4=M

So somebody will call a code wod and the initial of that word correspnds to a number. And the ball will come in on that number.

eg. Hooker calls "Apple ball". Apple => A => 3 in the word "TEAM".

ref: crouch -bind-set
scrum: (on set) 1-2-3
ball comes in as the call gets to 3.

didds

Pack leader "PHONE"

Hooker calls "F"

epper:

 

[VM75]

sanction -- Free Kick ??

[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]20.5 Throwing the ball into the scrum
[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]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.[/FONT]
Sanction: Free Kick[/LAWS]

red is now omitted

 

[didds]

Pack leader "PHONE"

Hooker calls "F"

epper:

Yep - been there with lineout calls.
Training night: l/o codes are GIN-RUM-VODKA

Hooker calls "NIGHT".

didds

 

[ChrisR]

No signal from referee.
The scrum must be stable and there must be no delay once the ball has been presented to the scrum.

This is a critical piece. If the scrum sets and the SH doesn't crouch at the tunnel until the scrum is SS & S then he should not be FKd for delay. Once he crouches he must feed it.