[Law] Is it material?

[Staffs_Ref]

Ref it as you suggest,

Hmmmm ... I don't actually remember suggesting anything about how I would ref it ... I just asked a question. You must stop trying to put words in my mouth.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

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.

That seems perfectly reasonable ... but strikes me as not being consistent with the view of materiality that you applied to the 9m at the penalty scenario. The ball is being punted over the heads of the defence regardless of whether they are standing 9 or 19 metres away - Nothing material about their positioning, so why make any kind of issue of it?

 

[crossref]

Hmmmm ... I don't actually remember suggesting anything about how I would ref it ... I just asked a question. You must stop trying to put words in my mouth.

So you would expect them to throw straight too? So why even bring it up

 

[crossref]

. The ball is being punted over the heads of the defence regardless of whether they are standing 9 or 19 metres away - Nothing material about their positioning, so why make any kind of issue of it?

Pegleg answer this one perfectly

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.

 

[Pegleg]

That seems perfectly reasonable ... but strikes me as not being consistent with the view of materiality that you applied to the 9m at the penalty scenario. The ball is being punted over the heads of the defence regardless of whether they are standing 9 or 19 metres away - Nothing material about their positioning, so why make any kind of issue of it?

Because what is material is they are taking the piss and bossing you. If you concede control of the game you are bing controlled by the players. Good luck to you with that one.

Material effect stops if the player do not listen. A crooked throw is more often than not down to accuracy not cheating. If the crooked throw is attempting to gain an advantage then deal with it. You're there to make the call.


Let's take your "they're not jumping" scenario a (big) step further.

Team A has not contested a line out for 60 mins. So we let the throws get further and further off centre.

Two scenarios:

1; The Scrum half catches the throw in. Do you call it?


2; Non throwing player sees the ball is not going straight so jumps to "get the whistle". Do you call it?

You can open a whole can of worms if you do not manage the situation. AND YES the two scenarios are "daft". But don't forget people in the 70s would have thought a scrum feed direct into the second row could never happen!

 

[Staffs_Ref]

Because what is material is they are taking the piss and bossing you. If you concede control of the game you are bing controlled by the players. Good luck to you with that one.

They are not taking the proverbial, because what they aren't doing anything vaguely material. What they are doing will have absolutely no effect (let alone an adverse one) on the punt that the team in possession are taking. If you are going to sanction everyone for non-material transgressions during the course of a match then you are not going to have many players on the pitch for very long.

 

[Pegleg]

Are you serious? You've asked a player to do something according to law and they refuse, and you think they've done nothing wrong? Fair enough. We'd have had fun with you. YOu'd have given our hooker the whistle at half time while we laughed you off the pitch.

I can picture the scene.

Staffs Ref: "Guys back ten please"

Player: "No chance"

Staffs Ref: " No problem. Whetever suits you lads.":chin:


What would you do if the kick didn't work and the players caught it? "Opps Sorry boys it's suddenly become material. Now go back 10 and play nice for me lads!"

 

[Staffs_Ref]

Ar you serious? You've asked a player to do something according to law and they refuse, and you think they've done nothing wrong? Fair enough. We'd have had fun with you.

No, I haven't asked him and he hasn't refused, so he hasn't done anything wrong apart from marginally infringe on the 10m in a way that has no material effect on the game.

 

[thepercy]

Thanks for the responses, I thought I had it right, but now I'm not sure if I should have given options at the hypothetical lineout or not.... :biggrin:

 

[Staffs_Ref]

Thanks for the responses, I thought I had it right, but now I'm not sure if I should have given options at the hypothetical lineout or not.... :biggrin:

:biggrin: Yes, you definitely had it right. :smile:

 

[SimonSmith]

The line out throw is, I think, material.

If you don't call it, there's a seed of doubt with the players as to what you will call. I think leaving it alone is potentially the start of a slippery slope

 

[Pegleg]

No, I haven't asked him and he hasn't refused, so he hasn't done anything wrong apart from marginally infringe on the 10m in a way that has no material effect on the game.

You manage ALL offences material or not. IF you are aware of a player transgressing and you deem it to be "not material" you still let the player know. So you do say "12 you were just in front of the back foot there", " Flanker a full arm bind next time please", "10 please make sure your back are back 10 at the Line out / PK" etc. So you have told them (or should have told them!).

No one is saying ping evey offence and in the opening scenario if it's the first one no there is no need t0 ping them but you must let them know that you've seen it and that you have "marked their card".

You are letting down other referees if you fail to manage materiality. It is not a concept designed to allow us to pick and choose the laws we apply. It is to enable us to manage the game.

 

[Pegleg]

The line out throw is, I think, material.

If you don't call it, there's a seed of doubt with the players as to what you will call. I think leaving it alone is potentially the start of a slippery slope

Spot one. The player must know that YOU are on the ball. That YOU have seen it and have made a judgement. The idea that you ignore it leads down a very dangerous path.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

You manage ALL offences material or not. IF you are aware of a player transgressing and you deem it to be "not material" you still let the player know. So you do say "12 you were just in front of the back foot there", " Flanker a full arm bind next time please", "10 please make sure your back are back 10 at the Line out / PK" etc. So you have told them (or should have told them!).

No one is saying ping evey offence and in the opening scenario if it's the first one no there is no need t0 ping them but you must let them know that you've seen it and that you have "marked their card".

You are letting down other referees if you fail to manage materiality. It is not a concept designed to allow us to pick and choose the laws we apply. It is to enable us to manage the game.

I must come and watch one of your matches. i think it would be very entertaining to see you try to "manage" every player in every instance of a non-material transgression!

... Meanwhile, back in the real world ...

 

[ianh5979]

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

The balls not live until the penalty is taken, I would be happy to penalise it then, just not until its taken. You did say penalise before it is taken

 

[crossref]

The balls not live until the penalty is taken, I would be happy to penalise it then, just not until its taken. You did say penalise before it is taken

It's not something that's going to happen very often, but if they are standing still, not retiring, and ignoring the AR, and this is persistent, then you can sanction unde 21.7
[LAWS]
(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]

you don't have to wait for the kick to be taken.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

It's not something that's going to happen very often, but if they are standing still, not retiring, and ignoring the AR, and this is persistent, then you can sanction unde 21.7
[LAWS]
(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]

you don't have to wait for the kick to be taken.

Selective quoting can be so misleading.

Don't forget that it goes on to say in 21.7 (b)
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Must keep running. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Even if the penalty kick is taken and the kicker’s team is playing the ball, opposing players must keep running until they have retired the necessary distance. They must not take part in the game until they have done so.
[/FONT]
So, until they actively take part in the game they have done nothing wrong.

 

[Balones]

I must come and watch one of your matches. i think it would be very entertaining to see you try to "manage" every player in every instance of a non-material transgression!

... Meanwhile, back in the real world ...

Every player would be stretching things but with a team of three the team should be able to pick up nearly all. The approach that Pegleg takes is what would be expected by better/higher level referees and it is the ability to recognise trends and potential for future trangressions and the ability to input preventative communication is what I look for in a referee that has potential for higher level refereeing.

 

[Dixie]

Situation: Girls U19 Cup Semi-final with ARs. PK to White 35m out, AR is managing Black players to get back 10m, they are maybe 9m back, White kick for touch, over the offending players heads, misses touch, Black fullback picks up the ball and runs 95m for a try. After the match the AR, who is also a referee coach, asks why I did not give the PK, I didn't think it was material, he did.

All comments have taken the view that you were right, the AR was wrong - and I suspect that is the correct decision here. However, in a discussion on materiality (that discussed offside players on one side when the game flowed to the other), Crossref noted:

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

This is the one point where I can see the AR may have had a point in ThePercy's game. If White's running options were closed off by the offside forcing them to kick for touch, then the AR may have had a point - but it would have to be both very obvious and very deliberate before I would PK in those circumstances.

 

[crossref]

So, until they actively take part in the game they have done nothing wrong.

No.

If they don't retire, but instead line up 9 metres from the mark, standing still then they ARE doing something wrong. Before the kick is taken they HAVE to keep retiring until they are 10m away. 21.7(a)

It may not be material, absolutely, that's more subjective, but it's definitely wrong.

BTW it's not subjective quoting : 21.7(a) is the Law that covers covers before the kick is taken, 21.7(b) is after the kick is taken.


Staffs_Ref : you have become very aggressive on this thread! your posts #26, #37 #41 #54 #57 are all playing the man rather than the ball. Adding a smiley each time doesn't change that.