no signal from referee

[crossref]

did my first game last week with the new Law -- no signal from the referee to put the ball in

It certainly felt a bit odd, I'd got used to giving a signal these last few seasons.

More than once the 9 forgot the change, stood there waiting for the signal, and not getting one looked round at me to see why not. At which point I nodded a signal technically I suppose I should have remained sphinx-like.

What has been other people's thoughts on it ?
For me
negative - I felt I lost a bit of control on the scrum. But having said that neither team showed any signs of going back to the 'hit', but I still wonder if that's indeed what will happen over the season

positive - it gives more flexibility on positioning, eg without the need to tap the nine, you can stand a pace further back which makes it easier to check the straight put in while watch for offsides at the same time.

 

[Guyseep]

I'm not a fan of the "no signal" clause. I'm not sure what it accomplishes. In fact I think it may skew the scrum towards the team putting the ball in even more.

Currently, I stand at the front of the tunnel in the scrum and after I am happy that it is stable I step back and allow the scrum half to step in and put the ball in. That is my signal that I am happy with the scrum stability - I step out of the way. If I am on the opposite side of the scrum I point at the scrum half.

With the no signal I will still stand at the front of the tunnel then step back when I am happy that it is stable. However If I am on the other side the scrum half can immediately put the ball in, even if the scrum is not stable in their favour.

I know the response will be "FK for an early push", which I do, but usually I give the scrum a second or two to stabilize.

 

[Pegleg]

Two interesting posts. I've not done a game with it yet.

A couple of thoughts:

If you don't revert to a signal if the 9 "forgets" you either get a zombie situation or you Ping them for delay. Neither option is desitreable. certainly not for the first few weeks as we all get used to the change. So reverting to the signal seems a good idea to avoid the problem.

I think standing infront of the 9 and moving away when your happy achieves two objectives. Firstly you are in control and secondly when you move away your are effectively giving a signal.

Both [post seem to back up my thoughts about the potential problem and a solution.

 

[crossref]

My habit has been to stand close / in the way at the beginning, and whenever we are having stability issues , but if all is going well to keep clearer of the scrum ..

 

[VM75]

What has been other people's thoughts on it ?

My first match, no issues [aside from the fact that not one single 'against the head' ball was won ..... Booooo to WR ! ]

My second saw the nearest props jostling for regriping & then boring & bobbing up & down, was this purely the result of the need to try & get a very quick dominance from the non feeding team or give up all chance of winning against the head??? probably , but it only ended after some shared PK's & a captains general warning to YC the pair of them if they didnt desist. Oh & whilst that was happening I FK'd the feeding scrum half as it was obvious the scrum wasn't stable - yet he still lobbed the ball in !

One swallow doesn't make a summer though, so we'll see.

 

[Pegleg]

My habit has been to stand close / in the way at the beginning, and whenever we are having stability issues , but if all is going well to keep clearer of the scrum ..

Seems reasonable. Though stay in the front position might help until the new procedure become second nature to 9s.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

With the no signal I will still stand at the front of the tunnel then step back when I am happy that it is stable.

I do this.

On the occasions I stood on far side the SH did wait for the scrum to be S&S - so all good in this particular match.

I am happy for a second or so to elapse to achieve S&S as long as neither side is taking the piss.

 

[Phil E]

The advice we got is NOT to stand in the 9s way because that defeats the object of wanting them to get it in quick if the scrum is stable straight away. MY experience is that after a couple of games the scrum only becomes unstable if the 9 'doesn't' get it in quick.
The other advice we were told is that the 9 holds the ball at chest height, but as soon as he lowers it to his knees it needs to go straight in. i.e. one fluid movement. Many of you will remember this is how it used to be.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

At our meeting last night we were advised whilst there is no signal required anymore to put the ball in, if you are not happy with the stability there is nothing to stop you saying wait to the SH. Of course how you then tell him it's ok is another matter!

 

[andyscott]

If you allow the 9 to put the ball in on the hit, you will get hit and drive. You know that thing we have tried 3 seasons to stop

Get it stable and then he puts it in.

 

[beckett50]

Get it stable and then he puts it in.

Just tell the #9 at your pre-match that it is HIS responsibility not to put the ball into the scrum until it is S, S & S.

 

[tim White]

Of course, if the scrum is not stable you might ping his team for early shove?

 

[ChrisR]

NO! Ping for early shove if there's an early shove. That'll happen before he feeds.

If the front rows are squirrelly and he feeds it but the scrum goes to completion then no harm, no foul but you can let him know what you want on the next one. If it goes down then deal with that.

I think this can be an issue for SHs as on one weekend he'll be told to get it in and the next to hold it up.

 

[didds]

Of course, if the scrum is not stable you might ping his team for early shove?

or the other team cos the #9 is either fearful he will get done for delaying, or figures its a sure way of highlighting the early shiove. Or I suppose he is a twit!

hey ho.

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

There seems precious little need for the ref to stand in the way of the scrum half with these changes. The positioning of the s/h reduces the need to feed,and the ball can hit the ground immediately it hits the tunnel. So less to see that can't be achieved equally from the other side as regards initial stability of the scrum.

Unless there is an issue on that side he might as well set himself on the other side. Then as mentioned, place the responsibility on the S/h to get it in. The referee ceases to be one part of the equation which should be a good thing?

 

[crossref]

The purpose of the new law must be to take control of the put in away from the ref, and given to the SH.
So I think we shouldn't be routinely standing in the tunnel, with the primary purpose of controlling the put in

 

[tim White]

It is however a surefire way of letting the 9 know when you think it is stable and square -and much less likely to need a reset or other whistle. The whole engagement/feed thing has yet to settle down in the games I have seen; I would suggest manage the engagement/feed if you need to, don't manage it if you don't need to, but many players are still confused by it all.

 

[beckett50]

So, how are you going to spot the oppo LH slipping his shoulder inside?

 

[crossref]

So, how are you going to spot the oppo LH slipping his shoulder inside?

If you are standing there for a different reason , fair enough, but there is a current of thought that says stand there expressly in order to control the throw in .. which seems to me contrary to what WR are trying to do.

 

[andyscott]

So, how are you going to spot the oppo LH slipping his shoulder inside?

Look at the setup and the engage, then the body position post engage, then the angle of drive.