[Law] Is it material?

[crossref]

I'm not sure I could tell the difference between someone standing 9m away and someone standing 10m away, without the help of some nearby lines (such as half way and the 10).

so they'd soon realise that, and they'd stand 8m away

 

[ChrisR]

Without the assistance of lines on the pitch who can step off 10m? My guess is that 9 of 10 would come up short. So to quibble about a 10% variance in an imprecise measure on something immaterial is just ....

 

[crossref]

This is the same as players slightly offside on the opposite side of ruck or maul, they are so far away from the action they have no influence on the game which is 20m away, yet the crowd or coach will shout offsides... to be a referee you have to be deaf and thick skinned and hold your tongue, once you get into and argument with a coach or spectator over laws you are in trouble.

or by standing offside on the left, are they forcing the opponents to attack down the right ?

 

[crossref]

Without the assistance of lines on the pitch who can step off 10m? My guess is that 9 of 10 would come up short. So to quibble about a 10% variance in an imprecise measure on something immaterial is just ....

What's if it's persistently 15%, or 20% you have to draw a line somewhere (And WR drew the the line at 10m )

 

[ianh5979]

I agree - but even then I think the time to make the point is just before the PK is taken and the point would be made by advancing it 10m.

Crossref how can you penalise them until the kick is taken? Until its taken they could still retreat and be back 10 metres.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

so if they were persistently standing 9m away, at every single PK - you'd just let them?

I wouldn't, I'd ask, then tell, then penalise them not to.

But nobody (apart from you) is talking about it being a persistent problem. In the scenario described it is clearly immaterial. You would be trying to "manage" a complete non-issue ... the only person who would advocate that is the kind of person who could start an argument in an empty room. - Ah! Sorry! I was forgetting ... YOU could start an argument in an empty room! :biggrin:

 

[crossref]

But nobody (apart from you) is talking about it being a persistent problem. In the scenario described it is clearly immaterial. You would be trying to "manage" a complete non-issue ... the only person who would advocate that is the kind of person who could start an argument in an empty room. - Ah! Sorry! I was forgetting ... YOU could start an argument in an empty room! :biggrin:

read again! and read more carefully! camquin in post 11 introduced the question of how to manage this if it is persistent, I thought that was interesting, and and my first post #12 actually quotes camquin, and responds to that.
didds in#13 and pegleg in post #14 also took up the quersiton of managing it when it is persistent.

we all agree that if it's a one off it's not matrerial -- as I said in my post to you #16

f this was a one-off, and the kick is to touch, it's not material (so just have a word - 10m next time please), but if it was persistent and you'd already had that word, then sanction with 10m at

how would you manage it if it was persistent?

 

[crossref]

Crossref how can you penalise them until the kick is taken? Until its taken they could still retreat and be back 10 metres.

I understood the scenario to be that the AR is telling them that they are not 10m, and they are standing still, ignoring him.

(and agreeing that if this is the first time, it's not material, but if they are doing this every kick then you will want to stop it)

 

[ianh5979]

But you still can't penalise until the kick is taken

 

[crossref]

But you still can't penalise until the kick is taken

it's a bit of an esoteric argument - but if they are not moving then they are breaching

[LAWS]21.7 What the opposing team must do at a penalty kick
(a) Must run from the mark. The opposing team must immediately run towards their own goal line until they are at least 10 metres away from the mark for the penalty kick, or until they have reached their goal line if that is nearer the mark[/LAWS]

so why do you say that you need to wait for them to kick it?

 

[Staffs_Ref]

how would you manage it if it was persistent?

If the defence are repeatedly only retreating 9 metres every time the team in possession kick for touch I would repeatedly not take a blind bit of notice, because it doesn't make a jot of difference.

 

[crossref]

If the defence are repeatedly only retreating 9 metres every time the team in possession kick for touch I would repeatedly not take a blind bit of notice, because it doesn't make a jot of difference.

fair enough

 

[Pegleg]

If the defence are repeatedly only retreating 9 metres every time the team in possession kick for touch I would repeatedly not take a blind bit of notice, because it doesn't make a jot of difference.

NOPE for me. IF they continually ignore the laws they know that THEY and not YOU are in control. Or to put it another way they are taking the piss and you have lost their respect.


ASK

TELL

PING!!!!

The referees' mantra.

 

[ChrisR]

And in a match where you don't have an AR marking the 10m?

Are you going to march off 10 paces (or do you carry a tape measure) to demonstrate that your 10 paces is different from their 10 paces?

I'd care much more about how rapidly they retreated than how far.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

NOPE for me. IF they continually ignore the laws they know that THEY and not YOU are in control. Or to put it another way they are taking the piss and you have lost their respect.


ASK

TELL

PING!!!!

The referees' mantra.

So, presumably, if a team has decided not to contest any line outs where the opposition are throwing in, you would still still penalise the team throwing in every time the ball was not straight, would you?

 

[crossref]

So, presumably, if a team has decided not to contest any line outs where the opposition are throwing in, you would still still penalise the team throwing in every time the ball was not straight, would you?

I think you should expect straight throws
- maybe their plan is to not contest the next two or three and then, when the oppo have relaxed, contest the following one.
- perhaps they've been driven to non-contest because the ref is persistently allowing crooked throws.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

- maybe their plan is to not contest the next two or three and then, when the oppo have relaxed, contest the following one.
- perhaps they've been driven to non-contest because the ref is persistently allowing crooked throws.

Neither of those are the scenario I outlined.

The opposition have made a conscious decision not to contest lineouts when it is not their throw. A perfectly legitimate (and not uncommon) tactic.

The throws are subsequently not straight. Are you going to penalise them? Straightforward question - it doesn't require contrived adaptations to the scenario before you answer.

 

[crossref]

Neither of those are the scenario I outlined.

The opposition have made a conscious decision not to contest lineouts when it is not their throw. A perfectly legitimate (and not uncommon) tactic.

The throws are subsequently not straight. Are you going to penalise them? Straightforward question - it doesn't require contrived adaptations to the scenario before you answer.

I'm going to want the throws to still be straight

So that the other team can change their strategy and contest the next one if they want to, which is their right.

You say it doesn't matter - but how much not straight doesn't matter? 50cm, 1m, 2m ? directly to the scrum half?

Rather than play the game on special rules, why not just have this game the same as every game, this lineout the same as every lineout, and have the throw straight.


Ref it as you suggest, you are going to end up with them saying to you :
'Sir, we are going to contest the next one, please could you ask them to throw the next one straight?'
'skipper - they are going to contest the next one, can we go back to straight throws please'
Really?


- If blue announce an 8 man shove do you allow red to put the ball in directly to the second row?

 

[Pegleg]

And in a match where you don't have an AR marking the 10m?

Are you going to march off 10 paces (or do you carry a tape measure) to demonstrate that your 10 paces is different from their 10 paces?

I'd care much more about how rapidly they retreated than how far.

10m is what the referee says it is (sole judge and all that). Obviously common sense applies.

What normally happens is one, or more, of the opposition asks: "Are we 10?". More often than not they are fine. Any "contesting" of any request from me to go back further leaves them open to sanction. It rarely happens BUT with an AR it is more frequent at my level as players are not used to having ARs. If the AR has marked the line and the players are ignoring him they will get a warning and it will quickly become a PK if they are not prepared to listen and be told what is expected. Same a binding in the scrum etc. Not material and the scrum stays tidy play on with a word. If they aint listening then I'll deal.

 

[Pegleg]

So, presumably, if a team has decided not to contest any line outs where the opposition are throwing in, you would still still penalise the team throwing in every time the ball was not straight, would you?

One scenario the offence IS having a MATERIAL effect on the game. In the other the offence IS NOT having a MATERIAL effect on the game. Of course, as another poster has pointed out, WHY are they not contesting?

The concept of MATERIAL effect is important. If the lineout was not straight and there was CLEARLY a deliberate intention to not contest I would allow a wider definition as to "straight" but there would come a point where they are taking the piss.