Referee "jargon"

[Chunky Charvis]

I am looking at Communication by referees.

What do people think of the "jargon" that is used by top referees the world over?
Anyone got some good examples of these?

I am talking about the phrases that are used which convey meaning to the players and perhaps coaches, but that the average viewer (and referee...) would not find in the law book. Are these phrases helpful as they are good management tools? Or should we be using phrases only that appear in the laws?

For example "swimming up the side of the maul" - is this better than "side entry at the maul" or even "offside at the maul" from the Laws?

Another example - "loosehead lost his shape" rather than "loosehead angle" or "loosehead not driving straight"

I think our southern hemisphere cousins lead the way in this type of new phraseology.

Any other examples people can think of, and thoughts on their use?

 

[Phil E]

Chunky I hear them every fortnight as I try to make sense of the referees decisions at Welford Road and then put them up on the big screen.

I know what the referee means, but our scripts for the big screen use law book wording, to stop people complaining that we aren't doing it correctly.

Part of the reason they have me doing this job instead of a non-ref is because I can usually come up with the correct wording for what the referee says on the mic, based on the situation and also his signals.

So "taking space" becomes either offside or obstruction.
"Playing on the ground" becomes Off Feet or Hands in.

The problem comes when he does something like "standing up in the scrum", with a standing up (Arm hinged at the elbow) signal. What do you put on the screen for that?

 

[TheBFG]

20.2 (a)

BUT that's a FK offence :chin:

 

[Dixie]

So Phil E has given several, Taking the space, Hinging, Double Movement, Standing Up in the Scrum are all examples that could leave the knowledgeable spectator in the dark.

To my mind, swimming up the side is different from an Entry offence. A mauler may legally join at the back foot of the maul, then swim up the side. You'd have to argue that this was in fact a binding offence - though you then get into awkward questions about how the Sith Ifrican player who stripped the ball from his own lineout jumper then appeared at the base of the maul, still carrying the ball - haven't all teammates ahead of him actually swum up the side beyond him?

 

[OB..]

There is good jargon and bad jargon. The good simplifies communication between those who share the understanding eg "the gate". Bad jargon is mainly used by commentators eg "second movement".

"Swimming up the side" is more informative to the players than either of your alternatives.

Referee communication is primarily for the benefit of the players, not the crowd, so it is invaluable having a translation service provided by the Phil_E's of this world.

 

[didds]

how the Sith Ifrican player who stripped the ball from his own lineout jumper then appeared at the base of the maul, still carrying the ball - haven't all teammates ahead of him actually swum up the side beyond him?

Of course they have. Another elite game abuse that has now trickled down through the ranks. And its not just SAs either... I've seen this coached to an U17 community club side..

Well, I suppose you could argue that they haven't swum up the side - they've just actually joined beyond the back foot and everyone has chosen to ignore it.

didds

didds

 

[liversedge]

One of the "jargon" terms I hear and despise is "pre-engagement" at the scrum, meaning the FR are engaging early (before 'set').
Its up there with commentators that talk about "pre-planned" moves (how do they differ from planned moves exactly?).

Mark

 

[The Fat]

Referee communication is primarily for the benefit of the players, not the crowd, .

This is why it is annoying when referees of ALL levels fail to provide a clear secondary signal for the benefit of everybody not within earshot.

It is very frustrating when spectators turn to me at local games and ask me, "What was that penalty for?", and if I haven't seen the offence I have to reply, "Don't know. No secondary signal".
It is VERY frustrating when elite level referees fail to give correct secondary signals.
Craig Joubert will penalise a player for "swimming up the side of the maul", but will then give the "Failure to bind fully" signal. The player has had the decision verbalised in language he understands and everyone watching can see what the actual offence is by the signal.

The "standing up in the scrum" and its' corresponding signal is one that needs clarification. Maybe a good one to get a view from SArefs to start the ball rolling.

 

[Dickie E]

"reload"

"earn the turn" [Drift's phrase de jouer ]

"sacking"

"speed hump tackle"

 

[ChrisR]

... and then there is "walking around" which is not actually supported by law.

 

[OB..]

[Drift's phrase de jouer ]

I would like to think that is a neat play on French words ...

 

[OB..]

... and then there is "walking around" which is not actually supported by law.

Well, not your interpretation of the law anyway. Some people think players in a scrum are required to push straight and that walking sideways is thus not legal. That would also appear to be the view of international referees at present.

 

[Dickie E]

I would like to think that is a neat play on French words ...

Le probably

 

[Phil E]

Well, not your interpretation of the law anyway. Some people think players in a scrum are required to push straight and that walking sideways is thus not legal. That would also appear to be the view of international referees at present.

Which I end up interpreting as "Illegal Wheeling". Not happy with that description, but the supporters understand it and it's not contradicting a law.........'ish.

 

[ChrisR]

Well, not your interpretation of the law anyway. Some people think players in a scrum are required to push straight and that walking sideways is thus not legal. That would also appear to be the view of international referees at present.

"Push straight"? What does that mean to you? To me it's parallel to the long axis of the scrum. If the player's spines are alligned along that axis their feet can move from side to side. Crabbing into an opponents wheel is how a wheel is defeated but those skills have long been discarded.

If "push straight" meant parallel to touch then no wheel would ever be legal.

 

[RobLev]

"Push straight"? What does that mean to you? To me it's parallel to the long axis of the scrum. If the player's spines are alligned along that axis their feet can move from side to side. Crabbing into an opponents wheel is how a wheel is defeated but those skills have long been discarded.

If "push straight" meant parallel to touch then no wheel would ever be legal.

Because the central axes (up the spines of the #8 and the hooker) of the two packs are offset, all other things being equal there is a turning moment on any scrum. Legally pushing (straight) harder on one side than the other can accentuate the turning moment, and force the scrum to wheel; the forwards will step sideways to avoid falling over, but it is a reaction to an (increased) turning moment produced entirely legally.

As I understand it: On the other hand, if one pack deliberately sets out to wheel by stepping sideways - that is the (increased) turning moment is caused by, rather than causing, the side-stepping - that is seen as illegal.

 

[OB..]

Because the central axes (up the spines of the #8 and the hooker) of the two packs are offset, all other things being equal there is a turning moment on any scrum. Legally pushing (straight) harder on one side than the other can accentuate the turning moment, and force the scrum to wheel; the forwards will step sideways to avoid falling over, but it is a reaction to an (increased) turning moment produced entirely legally.

As I understand it: On the other hand, if one pack deliberately sets out to wheel by stepping sideways - that is the (increased) turning moment is caused by, rather than causing, the side-stepping - that is seen as illegal.

I agree.

(I am not particularly interested is arguing the meanings of words in this context.)

 

[Phil E]

So if the referee calls "standing up in the scrum", and makes a sign of hinging his arm upwards.

What would you interpret that as, to inform the spectators legally of what the offence was?

 

[Browner]

"Push straight"? What does that mean to you? To me it's parallel to the long axis of the scrum. If the player's spines are alligned along that axis their feet can move from side to side. Crabbing into an opponents wheel is how a wheel is defeated but those skills have long been discarded.

If "push straight" meant parallel to touch then no wheel would ever be legal.

Its interesting that deliberate crabbing is often cited as acceptable as a wheel counteraction technique , but the same crabbing isnt when employed as a wheel creation. That's inequitable.

 

[Dixie]

So if the referee calls "standing up in the scrum", and makes a sign of hinging his arm upwards.

What would you interpret that as, to inform the spectators legally of what the offence was?

Law 23, as one of our contributors notes in his tag line.