PDA

View Full Version : no signal from referee



crossref
29-08-17, 19:08
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
29-08-17, 19:08
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
29-08-17, 19:08
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
29-08-17, 20:08
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
29-08-17, 20:08
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
29-08-17, 20:08
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
30-08-17, 08:08
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
30-08-17, 09:08
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.

ctrainor
31-08-17, 21:08
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
01-09-17, 09:09
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
01-09-17, 16:09
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
01-09-17, 19:09
Of course, if the scrum is not stable you might ping his team for early shove?

ChrisR
01-09-17, 20:09
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
01-09-17, 23:09
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
02-09-17, 08:09
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
02-09-17, 08:09
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
02-09-17, 09:09
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
02-09-17, 12:09
[QUOTE=crossref;334941
So I think we shouldn't be routinely standing in the tunnel, with the primary purpose of controlling the put in[/QUOTE]

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

crossref
02-09-17, 16:09
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
02-09-17, 16:09
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.

Paule23
02-09-17, 20:09
Refereed my first game under this new law today, and what a bloody stupid rule it is. Scrums were generally more of a mess as they are generally not fully square and stable before the put in, yes you can penalise the SH for putting in early, but I found it more difficult to manage the scrums and talk to them to get them square and stable as I've already moved away to allows the SH to feed when they want.

I'm not sure what problem this change is trying to cure, maybe just to speed everything up, but for me it didn't work very well. Maybe it'll just take some getting used to.

Nigib
03-09-17, 11:09
Refereed my first game under this new law today, and what a bloody stupid rule it is. Scrums were generally more of a mess as they are generally not fully square and stable before the put in, yes you can penalise the SH for putting in early, but I found it more difficult to manage the scrums and talk to them to get them square and stable as I've already moved away to allows the SH to feed when they want.

I'm not sure what problem this change is trying to cure, maybe just to speed everything up, but for me it didn't work very well. Maybe it'll just take some getting used to.

Agree completely on having less control. I reffed several training games yesterday. I stayed in close until I was happy with stability, then backed away. Opposite the put-in was easier as I'd expected - maybe that's a solution, but I usually go touchline side of the scrum so I can see across the pitch. SH's were still looking to me for a nod, but I'm sure they'll uncondition themselves soon enough.

didds
03-09-17, 11:09
Agree completely on having less control.

so what is the difference between "now" and before the "ref gives the nod" previous law was introduced?

didds

Ian_Cook
03-09-17, 12:09
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.

Good. And so it should. Remember, they are more often than not, putting the ball in because the opponent's infringed.

Referees telling the SH to put the ball in should never have been introduced in the first place. It has led to the side throwing in (that is the non-infringing side) being disadvantaged at the scrum put in.

Teams quickly worked out that if they were not throwing the ball in, but knew when it was going to be fed, then with an 8-7 pushing advantage in the scrum, they would be able to time their shove to make it very hard for the opposing hooker to hook the ball. End result was the ludicrous situation we see frequently where the ball is in the tunnel, and neither scrum is strong enough to push the other off the ball, and neither hooker is willing to risk hooking.

It got better when "Yes 9" was dropped and became a tap or a hand signal, and thankfully, WR have finally realised their mistake, and have removed this ill-advised procedure from the game altogether

However, its a pity they have only done half a job in returning the scrum to what it is supposed to be... a HOOKING contest. Only once the ball is hooked should it become a pushing contest. IMO, what they should have done here is make the scrum half throw the ball down the middle but make it compulsory for BOTH hookers to strike for the ball, and no pushing until that happened.

Nigib
03-09-17, 12:09
so what is the difference between "now" and before the "ref gives the nod" previous law was introduced?

didds

Previously, the SH had to wait for a tap if on same side, or a clear signal if on the other - this gave me the flexibility to let the scrum settle before moving to the next phase, regardless of how close I was to the scrum itself. I feel it was safer than the new approach, as my focus was on the scrum, then the SH - now I have to be aware of both. Not having this clear step I can see the potential for arbitrary calls on the SH delaying or early engage. I'll reserve full judgement until after I've done a few games.

OB..
03-09-17, 13:09
Referees telling the SH to put the ball In theory, they simply told the scrum half when the scrum was properly set. Then the scrumhalf could decide his own timing (within reason). Unfortunately it rarely worked that way.

Phil E
03-09-17, 13:09
My first game the scrums were a bit "mobile" and I struggled slightly as described by others above.

Second and third games, no issues. Pinged the scrums if the moved past the mark. Reset them if they weren't stable, with the threat that we would continue resetting ad-infinitum until they were stable.
Also briefed the SH to hold the ball at his chest until it was stable, then when it was stable to move the ball to his knees and straight in (i.e. don't hold it at your knees). 90% of the time it goes straight in without any delay.

"SH, you get it in as soon as its stable, if its not stable I will deal with that."

ChrisR
03-09-17, 15:09
^^^^^ Yes.

But tthree questions:

Did you stand at the tunnel or let him?

Did he feed it at 'set' and, if he did, was that OK with you?

Was there any discussion/disagreement on what was 'stable'?

SimonSmith
03-09-17, 17:09
Signalling the scrum half came in when?

It's not like we're going back to a practice from decades ago. This should be recent history and recent memory, and not too tricky.

I did my first competitive match yesterday, and had nary a problem. Told the scrum halves that if I had a problem with the scrum, I'd tell them. Absent that, it's between them and the hooker.

Ian_Cook
03-09-17, 20:09
Signalling the scrum half came in when?

It's not like we're going back to a practice from decades ago. This should be recent history and recent memory, and not too tricky.

Trialled in 2013, then came into Law in 2014 when CTPE was replaced by CBS.


I did my first competitive match yesterday, and had nary a problem. Told the scrum halves that if I had a problem with the scrum, I'd tell them. Absent that, it's between them and the hooker.

Agree. These guys train (or should train) at this to get their timing right.


Also briefed the SH to hold the ball at his chest until it was stable, then when it was stable to move the ball to his knees and straight in (i.e. don't hold it at your knees).

"SH, you get it in as soon as its stable, if its not stable I will deal with that."

Bloody excellent. That is good advice to any referee.

didds
03-09-17, 21:09
Previously, the SH had to wait for a tap if on same side, or a clear signal if on the other - this gave me the flexibility to let the scrum settle before moving to the next phase, regardless of how close I was to the scrum itself. I feel it was safer than the new approach, as my focus was on the scrum, then the SH - now I have to be aware of both. Not having this clear step I can see the potential for arbitrary calls on the SH delaying or early engage. I'll reserve full judgement until after I've done a few games.

You misunderstood me Nige. Before the ref did the tap on the side/nod/verbal "now 9" or whatever none of that happened at all. It wsn;t that long ago!

Which sounds remarkably like what we have now. so why is it now a problem but before wasn't?

didds

Nigib
03-09-17, 22:09
You misunderstood me Nige. Before the ref did the tap on the side/nod/verbal "now 9" or whatever none of that happened at all. It wsn;t that long ago!

Which sounds remarkably like what we have now. so why is it now a problem but before wasn't?

didds

You're right Didds, I was just going back one set of orders from on high. Perhaps I've just got used to the control as a safety assurance thing - no doubt I'll loosen the reins soon :-)

Phil E
04-09-17, 10:09
^^^^^ Yes.

But tthree questions:

Did you stand at the tunnel or let him? I Let him

Did he feed it at 'set' and, if he did, was that OK with you? No, after Set not "on" it.

Was there any discussion/disagreement on what was 'stable'? No


msfmsf

crossref
04-09-17, 10:09
we had our society briefings yesterday -- the question of when you should/shouldn't stand in the tunnel didn't really come up, but the general thrust from the presenter was
- some part of the responsibility for ensuring that the scrum is stable before the put in has passed from the ref to the 9
- so add a sentence to the PMB to make that clear -- eg : you need to make sure ensure it's stable before the ball comes in. If it's not stable I'll have to deal with it, and it would be a shame to be FKing you on your own throw in

no doubt other people were there, so correct me if that's not a fair summary.