How straight is not straight (and do you play advantage)

[David J.]

This discussion makes me wish there was an "Immateriality" call like "Advantage" without the advantage. it would mean, "That throw was a little skew, but you're lucky the other team didn't contest, otherwise it'd be a FK/PK/etc." But you call it as it happens, not 10 min later when you address it at the next line out.

 

[oxped]

For me, alot depends on the level of the game. Last Saturday in my Level 12 game there were so many mistakes, knock ons etc etc, that if a throw was slightly off and then I would let it go just so I didn't have to blow the whistle again. Also played alot longer advantage than usual for the same reason. As long as you are consistent and dont let them take this pi** then they will probably appreciate not having to scrum down for the 50th time!

 

[Dixie]

This discussion makes me wish there was an "Immateriality" call like "Advantage" without the advantage. it would mean, "That throw was a little skew, but you're lucky the other team didn't contest, otherwise it'd be a FK/PK/etc." But you call it as it happens, not 10 min later when you address it at the next line out.

Nigel Owens used a form of words for exactly that when reffing Scotland v Romania. He said, as the Jocks won their own bent lineout against no opposition: "We'll play that".

David - it's unlikely that any restart would be a FK/PK, but you knew that anyway

 

[FlipFlop]

I find that I use phrases, coupled with "Play On" like:

"No contest" - when the throw is perhaps slightly too askew, but good enough to be let go when there is no contest. I'll often follow this with a word at the next lineout to the offending hooker asking for it straighter, as he would have been called if they contested it, or if it was any more askew.

When there's been "accidental offside" or "crossing" but no defender - I'll often call "No tackler" or something simliar.

The idea being - I'm communicating that I have seen the "offence", but deem it immaterial due to the actions or inactions fo the "non-offending" team. Never had any objections to it from players, assessors, spectators - and even had a few players say they liked it.

While I agree players should play to the whistle, find that calling "play on" signifies to the players that there ISN'T going to be a whistle.

 

[Emmet Murphy]

I still think of that as the Bob Ockenden Approach. It's stood me in good stead these last few seasons.

It was actually Bob who led that course!!! It has been very helpful for me too.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Flip Flop describes the recommended approach and verbals that I suggest to the development referees I coach. This is the accepted RFU Referee Department protocol, and is applied by Panel and Group referees.

No contest, not material affect of slightly askew throw (beyond outside shoulder is considered too far, so play on.

 

[Emmet Murphy]

I think with regard to allowing not-straights on the grounds of the non-offending side not competing we need to be careful that the next time the same side throw a not-straight you don't get one of the non-offending players throwing themselves across the line, putting themselves and the offending team's jumper at risk, to try and make a contest!

 

[Simon Thomas]

Emmet why would they do that and incur a penalty ?

All they need to do quite legally is compete for the throw, straight up and not across the line of touch, and as there is a contest if the ball is not on inside shoulder then it is scrum or line-out option to oppo.

Let us be clear that the 'not straight' allowance on non-contested ball is over jumping player's head, any further across to his outside shoulder it is a not-straight anyway

 

[Emmet Murphy]

I was thinking along the same lines as when a player is lying on the wrong side of a ruck and preventing the ball from being played - most of the time we wouldn't play advantage there because of the risk of someone using their feet to 'move' the offending player. I do agree with your advice - I just think you need to communicate to all the players very clearly (more clearly than one would normally) so they understand the rationale behind it.

 

[Simon Thomas]

And there-in lies our greatest challenge !

We may be tranmitting the correct messages, but often the receiver is not tuned in or even turned on.

 

[Emmet Murphy]

Absolutely - very well put!!

 

[didds]

All they need to do quite legally is compete for the throw, straight up and not across the line of touch, and as there is a contest if the ball is not on inside shoulder then it is scrum or line-out option to oppo.

but how do they know that that is the case? They have just seen a squint throw not been penalised? Now they arev faced with a decision - to get up and right across to try and take what may be another squint throw - or to not even contest in the air as they haven;t a chance with such squint throws and it places them at a disadvnatge on the ground if they try to do so in such circumstances.

In gthe latter case you now have a game where you as a ref will happily toddle home patting yourself on the back for keeping theb game flowing by not penalising squint throws that were never contested, when the actual reality is the no contesting team never bothered to contest once they saw there was little point and you in effect took the competition out of the restart.

its a slippery slope ...

didds