'Use it' call in scrums

[bcm666]

Can anyone highlight the law or directive that allows referees to call this? Law 20.4 (e) and (f) state apply when scrum is stationary and presumably referees calling at that point are simply warning the pack in possession that if they do not play the ball they will apply those laws. Also, in my opinion, those laws are there to stop one pack simply holding the ball for a long time whilst it is not is a place where it can be disputed.

What we are now getting is referees calling this when scrums are moving, like the maul or ruck 5 seconds. I can't see what power they have do this and it seems to me they just want the ball away from a situation (the scrum) that they do not like and want over as soon as possible if there is any chance of not having to award a penalty.

 

[Davet]

I haven't seen this particularly, but a strict interpretation would suggest that if the scrum is stationary and ball is at the back and available then it must be used immediately. There is no provision similar to a maul that it can get moving again. So stationary and available means use it now or it's a turnover, and even if you get a secondary push on that is irrelevant.

Not sure I'm entirely at ease with it, but that may be the interpretation.

 

[Phil E]

What we are now getting is referees calling this when scrums are moving, like the maul or ruck 5 seconds. I can't see what power they have do this and it seems to me they just want the ball away from a situation (the scrum) that they do not like and want over as soon as possible if there is any chance of not having to award a penalty.

At the top levels I would have to agree with you.

 

[Bryan]

What we are now getting is referees calling this when scrums are moving, like the maul or ruck 5 seconds. I can't see what power they have do this and it seems to me they just want the ball away from a situation (the scrum) that they do not like and want over as soon as possible if there is any chance of not having to award a penalty.

This only time I could see this being helpful is when the scrum moves towards 90-degrees, and the referee is trying to encourage the number 8 to play the ball to prevent the 90-degree turnover.

Do we (fans in general) want to see a scrum turnover b/c the scrum is wheeling again and again, or would we rather see the ball in play? I'm not suggesting the referee should use it as an "out" so that he/she doesnt have to penalize, but rather that if we do it at the ruck/maul to prevent the whistle, how is a scrum any different?

 

[FlipFlop]

I use "use it" to prevent me having to reset/turnover etc. It is a warning to the SH to get rid of it, and aids the game to flow. Also players will then turn on their SH if the 90degree turnover happens - "he told you to use it, and you didn't" type stuff.

Basis in law? None. Management. I won't penalise not using it, but I might blow for something else.

 

[OB..]

You don't need a basis in law or directives for voice management.

However in this case the law seems to be unsatisfactory. I don't see why we need two separate paragraphs (20.4 e and f) for a start. The aim is to make someone play the ball if the scrum has stalled - which is a situation we regularly deal with in a maul. It is a pity the law says "immediately".

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

This only time I could see this being helpful is when the scrum moves towards 90-degrees, and the referee is trying to encourage the number 8 to play the ball to prevent the 90-degree turnover.

Do we (fans in general) want to see a scrum turnover b/c the scrum is wheeling again and again, or would we rather see the ball in play? I'm not suggesting the referee should use it as an "out" so that he/she doesnt have to penalize, but rather that if we do it at the ruck/maul to prevent the whistle, how is a scrum any different?

This what George Clancy did at the end of the Amlin challenge cup final a couple of years ago. He got pilloried for it.
As pilloried as much a blowing for 90 degrees or under 20.4 e/f? Rock and hard place.

It's at 4:17 of this bit:-

George Clancy Amlin CC final

 

[Bryan]

This what George Clancy did at the end of the Amlin challenge cup final a couple of years ago. He got pilloried for it.
As pilloried as much a blowing for 90 degrees or under 20.4 e/f? Rock and hard place.

It's at 4:17 of this bit:-

George Clancy Amlin CC final

I remember this. I've used this as a clip many times about referees "backing themselves into a corner". I think this is a different set of circumstances than what I envision would be a "productive" use of saying "Use it"!

 

[pedr]

Some of these I saw on TV today appeared to be scrums which were about to collapse or have front-rows popping up (or had got to the point where that had probably happened) so that by law the referee should probably have ordered a reset but called 'use it' to mean 'if this scrum continues any longer it'll fail and we'll have to reset, so as you've won the ball, it's in your interests to get it out now.'

That seems sensible, to me, given that (as noted often before) top-level referees seem content to allow half-collapsed scrums to continue, at least momentarily.

 

[damo]

I think Clancy should have blown up and resetted the scrum because it is hard to see which team was responsible for popping the scrum. I can accept that he didn't want to go through another reset when the ball was clearly won though.

 

[DrSTU]

What he said. If I can keep the game moving then I'm going to do it.

This only time I could see this being helpful is when the scrum moves towards 90-degrees, and the referee is trying to encourage the number 8 to play the ball to prevent the 90-degree turnover.

Do we (fans in general) want to see a scrum turnover b/c the scrum is wheeling again and again, or would we rather see the ball in play? I'm not suggesting the referee should use it as an "out" so that he/she doesnt have to penalize, but rather that if we do it at the ruck/maul to prevent the whistle, how is a scrum any different?

 

[Dickie E]

You sometimes see similar in 7s where a ball carrier with no opponent in sight delays scoring the try while he basks in the adoration of team mates & crowd. It is reasonable for the ref to tell him to get on with it.

And if the player refused? FIIK

 

[damo]

You sometimes see similar in 7s where a ball carrier with no opponent in sight delays scoring the try while he basks in the adoration of team mates & crowd. It is reasonable for the ref to tell him to get on with it.

And if the player refused? FIIK

I had this debate the other day with a ref at a 7's tournament. I was of the opinion (reluctantly) that the player is within his rights to wait as long as he likes to put the ball down, and that if time was almost up there is nothing stopping him delaying to let the clock run out.

Maybe the IRB should introduce a specific law preventing it for 7's because it is a bit unseemly.