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

[OB..]

Pack leader "PHONE"

Hooker calls "F"

epper:

In the mid-'70s, Wales decided on a signal to set scrums to tell the forwards which way the backs intended to move the ball so that the support players knew exactly where to go. The two flankers were Trevor Evans from Swansea and Terry Cobner from Pontypool. It was agreed that any word beginning with 's' for Swansea would mean the move was going left whereas an initial 'P' would indicate right. Eventually, confident that everybody understood, it was time to take the new ploy onto the practice field and Gareth Edwards was the man to make the call just before he put in the ball. He shouted, 'Psychology!' The Pontypool front row went left, the rest of the forwards went right and the result was chaos.

From Odd-Shaped Balls by John Scally

 

[VM75]

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.

Agree, but i suspect you'll remember the times of a few years ago when #9 hestitated & didnt crouch & just kept looking at referee, some sneaky blighters even shuffled/leant left slightly to exaggerate their opponents getting an early shove on.

i hope this isn't a return to those days.

 

[crossref]

But is there a sanction for throwing in the ball too quickly .. before the scrum is stable

 

[VM75]

But is there a sanction for throwing in the ball too quickly .. before the scrum is stable

the best i could find

[LAWS] 20.1 [FONT=fs_blakeregular](j)
[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Stationary and parallel. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Until the ball leaves the scrum half’s hands[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular], [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]the scrum must be stationary[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular] and the middle line must be parallel to the goal lines. A team must not shove the scrum away from the mark before the ball is thrown in.
[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Sanction Free Kick[/FONT][/LAWS]

By implication, the SH isn't permitted to let it leave his hands if it isn't already stationary - which is presumed to now include stable :shrug:

 

[Ian_Cook]

[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

I don't agree. The scrum half will still have to throw the ball in if the referee tells him to do so, its just that with the Law trial, he doesn't have to wait until the referee tells him.

The bit in red was in Law 20.5 at least as far back as the 2000 rewrite, and even as back as 1996, the wording existed in a similar form

[LAWS]1996 Law
Law 20 (8)
The ball shall be put in without delay as soon as the two front rows have closed together. A team must put in the ball when ordered to do so and on the side first chosen.

Notes:-
(xii) In the interests of safety, the referee has authority to permit delay in putting in the ball if a player in the front row has not succeeded in getting his head down in the scrummage but otherwise he should ensure that there is no delay.

(xiii) A free kick should be awarded if the referee is satisfied that delay by the team in putting the ball in is deliberate and prejudices the other team.
[/LAWS]


The "Yes 9/tap on the shoulder" crap currently in use is a far more recent piece of fiddling around with the scrum, c2013 IIRC

 

[Jeff2509]

A while ago at one of the London Society meetings, Wayne Barnes led a session with Phil Keith-Roach on scrummaging.
I found it incredibly helpful for lots of reasons but he does explain very nicely why it can be helpful for refs to make the call about when its square and stable. Its around the 27 minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSVSONVBWXs

 

[VM75]

The scrum half will still have to throw the ball in if the referee tells him to do so, its just that with the Law trial, he doesn't have to wait until the referee tells him.

Fair point, well made, accepted.

 

[KML1]

In reality, we'll prob end up going back to the way we did it up to a few years back, by setting the scrum by standing in the tunnel, ensuring it was stable, and then stepping back/off to the side and allowing the 9 to put the ball in. Or if youre on the other side, briefing to wait till steady and then get some comm from you as a ref - nod/yes/thumbs up - indicate you're happy that it's stable.

Cant see any issues here at all!

 

[crossref]

then stepping back/off to the side and allowing the 9 to put the ball in. Or if youre on the other side, briefing to wait till steady and then get some comm from you as a ref - nod/yes/thumbs up - indicate you're happy that it's stable.

Cant see any issues here at all!

The only issue I can see is that World Rugby have stated that there must be no signal from the Ref !

 

[KML1]

But the law book also doesn't mandate players or officials to breathe in or out! Yet we allow it.

Now the mandatory command has gone away, we revert to managing the put in in a different way. Pragmatically, at most levels in this forum, you aren't going to move from the setting position, until you're happy that it's stable. That movement is the signal to the 9 isn't it?

 

[crossref]

Yes it is. And your thumbs up is also a signal

And there lies the problem ! For World Rugby have said "no signal" !

 

[ChuckieB]

If the scrum is stable the scrum half has the authority to feed the ball in. if the referee happens to give him a thumbs up/nod or whatever, the scrum half still has the authority to throw the ball in. In both situations the scrum is stable, the scrum half has the authority to feed the ball in. What the SH does, or what the referee does, doesn't determine whether the scrum is stable or not. It's for the scrummagers to sort themselves out on that one, as it has always been.

IMO It doesn't have to be interpreted that categorically a signal cannot be given.

Even More caution on the part of the referee to ensure the hit element hit doesn't creep back in. And expecatations on that are set at the pre match briefing.

 

[Blindpugh]

For me it is clear none of you referees have ever played HOOKER. You wait for C B S and engage and have OPPO TH and HKR boring into you so you can't see the ball coming in. You wait for scrum to settle/ be stable and tap hoping that scrum half puts he ball in and you time your strike so it goes down channel one. If you miss you are likely to lose ball against the head.

If you disagree look at B&I Lions vs AB scrums and what happened when B&I hooker struggled to strike for the ball!

 

[ChrisR]

crossref - WR doesn't say "The referee must not signal the SH". I take it to mean that the SH can feed the ball without waiting for a signal.

However, the referee is still in control of the match. I would expect that if the SH fed the ball on "Set!" and instability developed, such that a re-set was called for, the referee would slow the process and instruct the SH to wait for his signal.

If the problem persisted on subsequent scrums I'd expect the referee to step in and delay the feed until the problem is rectified. I think that this is well within his realm of responsibilities.

Blindpugh -with the SH shoulder width offset feed the chance of a win against the head just approached zero. Too bad. Another element of the game laundered out.

 

[Rushforth]

Blindpugh -with the SH shoulder width offset feed the chance of a win against the head just approached zero. Too bad. Another element of the game laundered out.

It is only half a shoulder width, which is on the same order of magnitude as the "Length in line" of 280-300 millimetres of Law 2.2.

I would back the front fives I hooked for back in the (early) nineties to win an average of 2-3 against the head, and to be sure we wouldn't have lost any (ok, perhaps one or two per thirty+ games over a season).

If at grassroots, one team picks a slowish flanker to hook for them, and the other a specialist hooker (even slower, but power in their legs as well as some flexibility), then that half-shoulderwidth isn't the main issue. And it certainly isn't any worse than the feeding being skew, as it has been for over a decade now.

The only reason that the skew feed was allowed was because of the ridiculous hit being more important to manage, and we've got rid of that with the "bind-set" (despite it taking a while!).

Also, even if the ball does come back to the side that doesn't knock on a bit more often than in my heyday, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. A side that happens to have a stronger scrum due to "big slow buggers" may not win such scrums, but at least they can do their best to give the opposition bad ball off their scrums, quite legally.

 

[didds]

with the SH shoulder width offset feed the chance of a win against the head just approached zero. Too bad. Another element of the game laundered out.

yup.

didds