Scum law changed: Yes nine replaced by a lick of the lips.

Common sense has prevailed and the 'yes nine' instructions from the ref have given way to a non-verbal cue.

The yes nine instructions were really a disadvantage to the side feeding the scrum. The ref waited until the scrum was stable before saying 'yes nine' but invariably after giving those instructions the opposition front row set about destabilising the scrum just as the scrumhalf was feeding the ball. It was like the equivalent of the ref shouting out in a lineout yes 2 and 5 and the ball being sent to 5.

Depending on the side the ref finds himself he either gives the scrumhalf a tap on the back or a nod. Perhaps even a cheeky wink or a raised eyebrow. I do think it's necessary for the ref to give some sort of indication otherwise we have the farcical situation of the scrumhalf waiting over the scrum until everything is perfect and the front rows inevitably collapse. However, it remains to be seen how obvious the ref's 'non-verbal' clues are and whether the opposition like the loosies hanging off the scrum look for this non-verbal clue and give the instructions to the front five.

I still think it's preferable to use a non-verbal instruction than a verbal one. Let's face it. The players that matter are the front row and they cannot see what is happening around them. They could hear the yes nine instructions from the ref though. It remains to be seen how much time is given to the scrumhalf from the time the ref gives the non-verbal clue to the time the 9 feeds the scrum. I think some leeway should be given like a hooker throwing to the lineout but this time should be clearly defined and a limit imposed otherwise we will get scrums collapsing and this is why the laws were changed in the first place.

Last year we often saw sides struggling with scrums on their own put in. The hooker has to raise his foot and the opposition front row were able to get the all important first shove in. The side feeding the scrum should have the advantage of feeding the scrum at their own discretion, with obvious time limits, which should help the destabilising effect of having the hooker hook the ball. By the time the opposition front row have been alerted - even if we're talking milliseconds - it should prove enough time for the ball to be fed straight and the ball to be hooked. That said, if you have a powerful scrum, it should reward teams to have a stable scrum and put in a shove to force the team back and win the tight head if the side feeding the scrum are too slow to get the ball back to the 8 or not strong or skilled enough to get that initial shove over the ball.

It's a necessary change and I'm glad the IRB have made it. We saw dominant scrums being rewarded in general but more on the opposition feed than the other way round so this change should rectify that. I do think we could be in for some hilarity though with the refs giving their non-verbal clues. The ref might scratch his nose unwillingly and the scrumhalf feeds the scrum and then the ref does a cockney jig and gives a free kick to the opposition for an early feed. A front row might instead of grabbing the shirt of his opposite surreptitiously reach round and tap the halfback on his back in order to get the scrumhalf to feed when he wants.

What I'd like to avoid any of this sideshow is the ref to give the signal and the scrumhalf steps forwards and has five seconds to feed the scrum at his discretion. Thankfully the yes nine days are over. Now we have to wait to see how this tweak goes and how the opposition finds a way to get that edge back at scrum time when they don't have the feed.

Actually the ref and teams have to agree on a signal (or at least two depending on the side the ref stands) before the start of the game. What seems to be vague or unclear is how long the scrumhalf has until he can feed the scrum. It seemed previously the ref gave a two or three second leeway to the scrumhalf after the yes nine instruction was given. Without that verbal instruction it might be best to feed the scrum as soon as the ref thinks the scrum is square and stable and gives the go ahead.

My issue with the previous law was the ref thought the scrum was square and stable and gave the verbal instruction and then if the scrum then became crooked or unstable and the half back pulled out he was penalised for not feeding the scrum. If the non verbal instruction is given and the scrum is not satisfactory I still think the halfback should have the right not to feed the scrum and it is up to the ref to decide whether he agrees or not rather than immediately penalising the halfback for not feeding. We don't want the situation where the halfback should feed the ball and doesn't because he doesn't think the prop's socks were pulled up high enough or the backs weren't quite straight. But if the shove comes before the ball is fed or the front row goes down or starts to screw then the halfback should be entitled to see the scrum reset. Part of this mess came about that the laws were introduced to have less scrum resets and it seemed at times that the refs were going out of their way with penalties or letting scrums collapse not to blow up and set up another scrum. The problem is if you take the hardline Rollaind approach, you end up with the possibility of non-contested scrums because all the props are off the field.

   

So you're the opposition 9. All you have to do is watch when the SH's face moves from ref to scrum. He'll do that as he'll need to then find the best time to put the ball in. You then see the non-verbal signal and can just watch that from then on. Or just watch the ref. Then YOU SHOUT "YES NINE" and we revert to the old system.

This is too bad for a single facepalm. Que 5m defending scrum excuses - "I didn't see the signal" or - "The ref was to exaggerated..." from Mr Cockerill.

  

    

Jeez talk about going from cockup to cockup.

The way things are going in a few seasons the ref will be allowed to score his own tries….htis paternalistic interference is getting ridiculous

Harlequins will probably introduce a dummy refbot who will sneak onto the pitch and tap the opposition 9

Talk about Scum law.

New Zealand will have a new reason to suggest refs are bent when they lose.

That Wayne Barnes, he blew me a kiss.

Steve Walsh will have a field day with this new rule! Wink to the scrum half or a cheeky pat on the bum if he goes round the other side!

GLove39 wrote:Steve Walsh will have a field day with this new rule! Wink to the scrum half or a cheeky pat on the bum if he goes round the other side!

Nigel Owens will be chuffed to bits

Scratch wrote:New Zealand will have a new reason to suggest refs are bent when they lose.

That Wayne Barnes, he blew me a kiss.

 
Do you mean disappointed NH fans will have a reason to blame Joubert when the All Blacks win the world cup? (The referee was making secret signals to the All Blacks...)
 
It won't solve anything, because the defending team's 9 will now just watch the referee for the signal and shout out "yes 9" as soon as he sees it. Stupid idea.

Another nail in the scrum coffin. The sooner the IRB realise that the scrum itself is the issue, and replace it with a short arm free-kick the better for the game.