Query 2. Should We Consider Materiality?

[Taff]

I think that's the bit there is a big question over?

Exactly. Define "Not too daft".

I reckon that at a LO, the ball could go over the catchers right shoulder - possibly directly over his head, but certainly no more than that.

 

[ChuckieB]

No.

I am quertying the call that materiality CAN be applied at lineout throws, so should, as its used elsewhere

I have no issue with the general concept of materiality. I do find... amusing... the idea that it MUST be applied (in the eyes of some) just because it CAN be.



didds

I think "MUST" is a perhaps too restrictive a word. I think they "choose" to apply it because it fits in with their natural preferences of how they see the game should be played.

That's a chasm that will never be filled even if supported with a clear directive.

 

[didds]

Exactly. Define "Not too daft".

I reckon that at a LO, the ball could go over the catchers right shoulder - possibly directly over his head, but certainly no more than that.

surely that would be not straight by anybody's definition, throwing to a yeamate who is stood to the left of the LoT?

didds

 

[didds]

That's a chasm that will never be filled even if supported with a clear directive.

Well, if the clear directive is that all throws in all circumstances should be landing in the lineout gap, then i can't see how anybody could not follow it whatever their personal thoughts?

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

Well, if the clear directive is that all throws in all circumstances should be landing in the lineout gap, then i can't see how anybody could not follow it whatever their personal thoughts?

didds

People's natural preferences I meant.

I value skills above keeping the ball in play so the thought of even considering a KO as a concept to be discussed under materiality is an anathema to me.

A bit like those wo are advocates of absolute open flowing rugby and who don't appreciate the forward game because they've never played it. You'll never convince them otherwise.

 

[VM75]

No.

I am quertying the call that materiality CAN be applied at lineout throws, so should, as its used elsewhere

I have no issue with the general concept of materiality. I do find... amusing... the idea that it MUST be applied (in the eyes of some) just because it CAN be.

didds

Im not applying it merely because it can be, i'm applying it because one team aren't trying to contest/compete for possession & therefore why stop the game & have another restart , makes no sense.

I see this as similar to the often seen examples of support players lying on the BC after he's been tackled [parking themselves over/ahead of the ball] , & [unless I'm wrong] referees allow it [despite the law illegality] IF the opponents don't try to contest a ruck.

Yet they PK it as 'sealing off' if the opponents do actually try to contest/ruck. So in that area of the game materiality of 'not contesting' is already being applied routinely. Lineout throw 'not contesting' is merely mirroring that materiality mindset.

 

[OB..]

Im not applying it merely because it can be, i'm applying it because one team aren't trying to contest/compete for possession & therefore why stop the game & have another restart , makes no sense

The ball is entirely under the control of the thrower. I think it is better for the game if he is expected to throw it correctly. The opposition should be entitled to rely on the referee for that, rather than having to jump whether they want to or not, just in case a throw is crooked.

 

[Phil E]

Im not applying it merely because it can be, i'm applying it because one team aren't trying to contest/compete for possession & therefore why stop the game & have another restart , makes no sense.

Are they not competing because there's no point unless you apply the law correctly?

 

[VM75]

Are they not competing because there's no point unless you apply the law correctly?

I doubt it, the PMB gives them clear notice that contesting has a value and reward. Smart players soon work it out.

there are loads of occasions that law non adherence is considered immaterial, for me it's in that bundle.

If that's not you, then thats fine also.

 

[VM75]

Are they not competing because there's no point unless you apply the law correctly?

Have you actually read this thread? competing encourages straighter throws !

 

[Balones]

Im not applying it merely because it can be, i'm applying it because one team aren't trying to contest/compete for possession & therefore why stop the game & have another restart , makes no sense.

I see this as similar to the often seen examples of support players lying on the BC after he's been tackled [parking themselves over/ahead of the ball] , & [unless I'm wrong] referees allow it [despite the law illegality] IF the opponents don't try to contest a ruck.

Yet they PK it as 'sealing off' if the opponents do actually try to contest/ruck. So in that area of the game materiality of 'not contesting' is already being applied routinely. Lineout throw 'not contesting' is merely mirroring that materiality mindset.

I could accept a referee allowing it the first time (or second at a push) but I would expect the referee to manage the situation by getting the players to either reload or get away. If the referee doesn't sort it out then the players will and in all likelihood do something illegal to do it. Ignoring such things could or will lead to problems later in the match. "If they can do it then we might as as well" may well be an approach as well but would certainly lead to frustration.

 

[Balones]

I doubt it, the PMB gives them clear notice that contesting has a value and reward. Smart players soon work it out.

there are loads of occasions that law non adherence is considered immaterial, for me it's in that bundle.

If that's not you, then thats fine also.

If it is clearly not straight then it is acceptable not to compete because there is no point. If you don't penalise then the next time there is a lineout to the opposition they won't bother throwing it straight. We would then have the equivalent of rugby league scrums at a rugby union lineout.

 

[Balones]

Have you actually read this thread? competing encourages straighter throws !

I think I understand what you are saying but I'm not sure. It all depends what has gone before.
First lineout - you would expect both sides to compete because the opposition are expecting a straight throw. If the referee lets not-straight throws to go then competition may stop.
I can also see the situation where a side being dominated in the lineout may not throw as straight as they should. In which case it is the competition that is encouraging not-straight throws.

 

[OB..]

If it is clearly not straight then it is acceptable not to compete because there is no point.

If you are planning to compete, you will go when the opposition do (or slightly before) - you won't delay to see if the throw is straight.

Players train to take a ball thrown into the gap. Would there be any real benefit to deliberately throwing crooked? (Unless you KNEW the refereree would not penalise it).

I am struggling to see a problem here: don't allow crooked throws. It's much simpler than batting around such an imprecise concept as materiality and all the players will know what to expect.

 

[VM75]

I think I understand what you are saying but I'm not sure. It all depends what has gone before.
First lineout - you would expect both sides to compete because the opposition are expecting a straight throw. If the referee lets not-straight throws to go then competition may stop.
I can also see the situation where a side being dominated in the lineout may not throw as straight as they should. In which case it is the competition that is encouraging not-straight throws.

ever the optimist one last attempt ...... you've clearly not followed my input into this thread or you'd already understand that I PREFER/WANT/ENCOURAGE A FAIR COMPETITION TO TAKE PLACE, it's IF the players decide not to contest for the opponents thrown possession THEN I apply a materiality judgement .... it's wholly material that they've choosen not to contest, they didn't want jump/lift to challenge then their concession is accepted by me , play on. :shrug:

 

[didds]

so how far squiff would you permit in an unconetsted-in-the-air lineout?

didds

 

[OB..]

ever the optimist one last attempt ...... you've clearly not followed my input into this thread or you'd already understand that I PREFER/WANT/ENCOURAGE A FAIR COMPETITION TO TAKE PLACE, it's IF the players decide not to contest for the opponents thrown possession THEN I apply a materiality judgement .... it's wholly material that they've choosen not to contest, they didn't want jump/lift to challenge then their concession is accepted by me , play on. :shrug:

I don't understand why you want to give sustenance to inaccurate play. Keep it simple - players may or may not understand the subtleties of materiality, but the spectators won't. You are making a rod for your own back, as didds has pointed out.

 

[ChuckieB]

ever the optimist one last attempt ...... you've clearly not followed my input into this thread or you'd already understand that I PREFER/WANT/ENCOURAGE A FAIR COMPETITION TO TAKE PLACE, it's IF the players decide not to contest for the opponents thrown possession THEN I apply a materiality judgement .... it's wholly material that they've choosen not to contest, they didn't want jump/lift to challenge then their concession is accepted by me , play on. :shrug:

you stated in an early post you can get your assessors comfortable if everyone is "on message". What about your society?

As my relative inexperience seems to attract many suggestions to align myslef a society view on such matters, how have you got over this hurdle with yours?

 

[Balones]

VM75 - Your profile says you are a coach. Team or referee?
I can understand players not competing for the ball under certain circumstances at a line out.
- If the ball is only slightly not straight and it is obvious that for whatever reason the opposition clearly don't want to compete. E.g. focus on driving a maul etc, then I can accept the not straight and play on. (On the one occasion as mentioned previously.)
- If the ball is very clearly not straight then I would expect the referee to blow since there is no chance of competing. I would expect the players to expect the referee to blow, as would the opposition coach.
It is the above situations I would suggest that indicate when and how materiality can be applied.

At the same time I have to say that I would expect the better referees to be refereeing the whole game and not a specific incident. That means making decisions based on context and time. I.e. A decision made in the 75th minute may be related to one made in the 3rd. A good referee will realise that they cannot allow frustrations to build up in the game and applying too much perceived materiality to an action can build up frustration.

A referee cannot afford to make some decisions based on the requirements of the players. It gives them control and not the referee. if a team say to a ref we'd like you to blow for every not straight because we are not going to compete if it is slightly not straight then where is the control? It is the referee that applies standards for compliance to the laws and not the players. (Obviously the better referees will set standards that the players can, with some effort perhaps, achieve by nature of their ability and level.)

Teams can equally decide not to compete against a straight ball as well.

 

[ChrisR]

I get OB's point in post 134. However . . . . . .

If Red set up to defend against a maul (or for any other reason and don't compete for the ball) and the throw goes directly to Blue then I'd say play on, not material.

At the next Blue lineout let the thrower know that the next 'not straight' will get called.