5 second "use it" law modification

[JSRF10]

Having watched the first few rounds of Super rugby and this weekends 6 nations games am I the only person a bit miffed about this rule? When the ball is slow coming from the ruck the referee calls use it after 5 seconds then proceeds to give the attacking team about another 5 seconds to play the ball. If this rule was enforced properly could really speed up some turgid affairs but few referees want to enforce it. Can't get my head around the IRB finally introducing a sensible law then the referring fraternity ignoring it! Do any of the refs on here know something about this law I don't?

 

[JSRF10]

could I get a mod edit on the title? Not sure how I got the word rule in there twice! Half asleep here

 

[cyclopath]

Done.
PS rugby has laws, I think.

 

[Rebel rouser]

Agree mate. This law is not being rigorously enforced and so, thus far, has not had any appreciable effect on the speed of ball clearance.

I haven't looked at how it's been written into the law book but I think the current problem is the refs are feeling obliged to warn the team to 'use it' before they call the infringement. As you point out, by the time they give the warning it's usually already close to 5 seconds meaning teams are regularly getting closer to 8 (or more) seconds to use the ball. I reckon one way to give everyone a kick up the bum is just to blow the infringement as they see fit - without a warning - because otherwise you would have to be warning a team on just about every play (i.e. after about 2-3 seconds) .

Once a team has been blown for it, that will really get them moving and I doubt you'd see it blown twice in a game.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Agree mate. This law is not being rigorously enforced and so, thus far, has not had any appreciable effect on the speed of ball clearance.

I haven't looked at how it's been written into the law book but I think the current problem is the refs are feeling obliged to warn the team to 'use it' before they call the infringement. As you point out, by the time they give the warning it's usually already close to 5 seconds meaning teams are regularly getting closer to 8 (or more) seconds to use the ball. I reckon one way to give everyone a kick up the bum is just to blow the infringement as they see fit - without a warning - because otherwise you would have to be warning a team on just about every play (i.e. after about 2-3 seconds) .

Once a team has been blown for it, that will really get them moving and I doubt you'd see it blown twice in a game.

Although I agree, I am happy to ease into this one as it is potentially introducing a greater delay by awarding the penalty.
There are better ways to get the game moving more quickly and they would seriously open it up.

 

[qwerty51]

It's 5 seconds after the ref says 'use it'. I don't think there's a law for when the ref will say use it, up to his own discretion.

 

[Rebel rouser]

So, due to all the confusion, I've gone and looked up the actual law book to see how it is written.



LAW 16: RUCK

16.7 Unsuccessful end to a ruck
Five seconds to play the ball from the back of the ruck

Add new 16.7(c):

When the ball has been clearly won by a team at a ruck and the ball is available to be played the referee will call "Use it!" after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within the five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball at the ruck is awarded the throw in.
(source)
http://www.fijirugby.com/_resources/article/files/IRB Law Amendment.pdf



So, according to the law, technically the ref should be calling 'use it' whenever they see that the ball has been won. A very onerous task on the refs, and so - unsuprisingly - they are not doing so every ruck. Only when the team seems to be being unreasonably slow.
I still stand by my earlier point that if it's about getting the ball out in 5 seconds, the call of 'use it' simply slows the whole process down. I think the law writers have dropped the ball on this one.

 

[JSRF10]

Not great wording by the IRB I'd have to agree, thanks for clarifying that for me.

Good law in theory but just isn't working that well

 

[Lindommer]

Sounds similar to the one requiring scrummies to feed the pill into the centre of the front rowers' tunnel. Honoured more in the breach than the observance.

 

[Forcefield]

I think the law was introduced for two reasons. The first was to stop teams with a 1-7 point advantage from essentially killing play in the final 2-3 minutes of each half. Refs were finding a way to stop teams playing 'cynical' rugby (usually sealing off or off feet at ruck calls). Now they don't have to. The second is to stop the Force's signature move- take a minute to gather three forwards into a pod and then pass the ball to them. The opposition reads the move like a book and promptly shuts it down. Repeat.

 

[Richo]

I think the law was introduced for two reasons. The first was to stop teams with a 1-7 point advantage from essentially killing play in the final 2-3 minutes of each half. Refs were finding a way to stop teams playing 'cynical' rugby (usually sealing off or off feet at ruck calls). Now they don't have to. The second is to stop the Force's signature move- take a minute to gather three forwards into a pod and then pass the ball to them. The opposition reads the move like a book and promptly shuts it down. Repeat.

Does that make it like the drug use intervention of rugby laws?

 

[Bullrush]

I don't get what the problem is? From what I saw on the weekend, I think it definitely hurried some of the plays.

Is available ball being left for long amounts of time in the ruck? If not - what's the issue??

 

[elementfreak]

Having watched the first few rounds of Super rugby and this weekends 6 nations games am I the only person a bit miffed about this rule? When the ball is slow coming from the ruck the referee calls use it after 5 seconds then proceeds to give the attacking team about another 5 seconds to play the ball. If this rule was enforced properly could really speed up some turgid affairs but few referees want to enforce it. Can't get my head around the IRB finally introducing a sensible law then the referring fraternity ignoring it! Do any of the refs on here know something about this law I don't?

You are getting confused. The "use it" law is about not having the ball sitting available at the back and the halfback taking his time. If the ball is being won slow then the referee will let the ball become available and then he will call "use it", although he will only call it if the player doesn't look like he will use it in a timely manner.

Does that help?

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't get what the problem is? From what I saw on the weekend, I think it definitely hurried some of the plays.

Is available ball being left for long amounts of time in the ruck? If not - what's the issue??

Agreed. I think it is working as intended.

It is really just there to stop teams from intentionally wasting time or spending ages getting their forwards in position for the next phase.

The other thing it has seemingly removed from the game is 'the centipede' which teams would set up to give their halfback mountains of room to make a box kick.