Materiality - is it dead or just dying?

[Patrick]

Okay, okay, before you get the pitchforks out, this isn't going to be an argument - I promise.

Here's how I'll frame it:
- Background of why I'm starting this thread
- Example THAT JUST shows some refs mental position of the subject
- My SIMPLE argument
- Backing out of the room slowly...

Background
Had this wonderful discussion with a New England ref late last year - his point, especially with Youth (U19) is everything is Material. Meaning, letting players NOT get away with anything is a learning opportunity.

Last weekend, after a wonderful match for collage boys, a senior ref in my society and I sat down in the shade to go over my match.

He does mostly men's sides (or used to) and wanted to ask me about each call he thought might fall into 'was that infraction material?'.

My order is always 1) Safety, 2) Contest. Many would say 1) Safety, 2) Material, 3) Contest.

Then, I ask the basic question 'would the team that will receive the penalty and thereby take possession of the ball think so-and-so infraction is material?' Inevitably (and I mean always), they would say 'yes, thank you Sir, where is my mark?'.

Somehow, Material has become associated with keeping the ball / match flowing. Well, just because the ball is moving, why wouldn't I call what I see? It seems the responsibilty of the team with the ball to do everything to keep from making an infraction AND, just the opposite, the team on the defence is (or should be) doing everything they can to apply pressure and make that ball change hands - not the least of which is drawing a PK.

Example
This is one of my favorite examples - red ball carrier is brought to ground, almost instantly, two red team mates bridge over the ball carrier, then two more bind on behind them. Blue team is completely sealed off from play and doesn't know what to do and no contact is made between the two teams (as in, no Ruck is formed).

Ball comes out, red team continues to move the ball down the pitch.

Obviously, the ref has a whole panoply of calls he could have made.

SIMPLE argument
Here are the two sides of the argument
- For Materiality: Blue team made no effort to form a Ruck and fight for the ball, therefore, it's not material.
- Against Materiality: Blue team felt there was no way to safely or legally form the Ruck due to the nature of the various sealing off tactics.

Backing out of the room slowly...
Guys, please don't debate the incident but rather what real leg is there to stand on when EVERY PK and at least some Scrums turn over possession - that's irrefutable. (other then playing Advantage that is)

If the argument from the coaches is 'you're slowing down the match ref!'. Isn't the real reply 'stop coaching your players to purposefully break laws.'.

Is Materiality even a thing in any other sport - I don't know of any?

Okay, I'm leaving now - I can see all of your faces and have your home address so no fire-bombing my car. It's been YEARS since you guys have even discussed this so, you know - don't be a hater.

- Patrick

 

[Pegleg]

OK on this issue:

You say:
My order is always 1) Safety, 2) Contest. Many would say 1) Safety, 2) Material, 3) Contest.

Let's take safety out. After all that is a given If safety demands a whistle then blow. So we have Either 1) Contest or 1) Material, 2) Contest.
Now Contest / materiality are part of the same point. If a contest is prevented then the action IS material So in reality we have 1) material or 1) material. In other words does the offender affect the options of the non offender.

There are a number of ways that the offender affects the non offender:


1; Preventing a contest.
2; Reducing options.
3; Turning over the ball.
4; Preventing a score.

There are probably more.

The referee is the "sole judge" etc of whether or not I have been materially effected by the cheating. Now the problem is with the application NOT the principle. As with "advantage" referees can play it well or badly. Many to refrees seem to use material effect as a method "penalty avoidance". The better referees use it as a method of management. They keep the game flowing and deal with offenders with a quiet word, escalating if required.

I hope it does not die out.

 

[Phil E]

I once asked a senior RFU Refreee what he thought of American Referees.
He said "They know all the laws............and are determined to use every single one of them........in every match!"

Now that may be an exaggeration, but you can see where the game would go if it was true.
There are around 40 or so possible infringements at every break down and set piece. If we penalised them all (as your friend suggested), and we could if we followed the letter of the law, then we wouldn't have a game; we would just have penalty after penalty.

This is where materiality comes into play. it allows us to keep the game flowing by not penalising non material infringements. This doesn't mean we should ignore them, but we should use management and communication to reduce them, in the same way that we use preventative refereeing.

To answer the original question, if materiality dies, so does the game.

 

[Browner]

What's " In the shade " !

 

[Pegleg]

What's " In the shade " !

In these parts it's "Under an umbrella".

 

[SimonSmith]

Taking away materiality is like saying the police get to nab you at 1 mph over the limit, or give you a ticket for every single transgression, never mind the magnitude thereof.

How you approach this will speak to your philosophy about your role as a referee - unthinking policeman, or trusted facilitator. No-one - the players, the coaches, the fans, and you - will enjoy it when you become the policeman.

Now think about it a bit deeper: there are penalizable offences at most phases of play. You going to call them all? A lot of them, especially at your level, will derive from lack of skill, knowledge and fitness. You're going to destroy a game because of a series of mistakes by someone who didn't know or couldn't do better and probably had zero impact on the game itself?

Judging materiality is a critical skill for a referee. rather than throwing the concept out altogether, I'd suggest you spend time getting used to assessing what is or is not material and needs to be called.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Don't forget this issue is being raised by people who live in a country where you can be imprisoned for 30 years after your 3rd shoplifting offence! :biggrin:

 

[Daftmedic]

Had this discussion with an absolute throbber of a coach this weekend. I ended it with," Your opinion is having a material effect on my otherwise good day".:buttkick:

 

[didds]

Is Materiality even a thing in any other sport - I don't know of any?

I don't know the answer to this but throw it out for debate...

Football aka soccer: player with ball in centre of pitch running into oppo penalty area. Teammate is in an offside position way out beside the corner flag.

Is that corner-flag player offside - yes?

BUT...

is it "material" - do football refs blow for that?

didds

 

[didds]

Then, I ask the basic question 'would the team that will receive the penalty and thereby take possession of the ball think so-and-so infraction is material?' Inevitably (and I mean always), they would say 'yes, thank you Sir, where is my mark?'.

WADR... show me a team that would spurn an opportunity of 3 points or a probably large territorial gain and almost guaranteed ball back ? Of course a team will always say its material... because they WANT those options above all else (advantage notwithstanding etc)

didds

 

[ChrisR]

Great subject. It may be easy to spot an infringement but far more difficult and nuanced to determine materiality. It isn't always about 'contest', it may be about 'continuity' (meaning the opportunity to play the ball as they wish).

This is an area that should be the subject of 'continued education' by referee societies. I can't answer as to whether it is or not as I stopped going to my local society meetings because it is 90+ minutes each way, I changed from coaching adult to youth, I was the only coach there and my opinion was of no account.

Phil E's opening remark about US refs isn't too far off because their education and certification starts with the laws. Perhaps I could be enlightened as to what they get from their referee coaches/assessors. During the time that I was only refereeing, not coaching, I was assessed once. He said: "Good job. They looked like they were having fun". That was it and I think he hit it right on the button.

Our new referees would have a head start if our coaches were better versed in law and demanded their players to be likewise. I'm at fault here too as I have too little time and inclination to cover law although I do include it when it's appropriate to their training.

 

[Patrick]

With the exception of the petty derisions (which I fully expected), VERY interesting replys.

REMEMBER - I don't have a strong opinion - that's why I couched it the way I did - comments and learned discussion - not a fight.

The only skin I got in this game is becoming a better ref.

Okay, all that being said - I look at Materiality as completely different from Contest. For one thing, Contest is mentioned several times in the IRB Law Application Guidelines where Material is only used in reference to clothing.

I feel like when I turn up Materiality, I'm turning down Contest. Conversely, when I turn up Contest with little regard to Materiality, I'm not allowing the advancing team to continue.

BUT, in the back of my mind, I hear this little voice say '...yes but, are you just rewarding the team that is taking advantage of the center refs allowing their team to infringe on laws and therefor reinforce that behavior?'.

Trust me, I'm saying 'back foot' about twenty times before I blow it up. Same with, hands, release, roll away, lost, release the leg (I just learned that one on this site!), etc. I would rather keep the match going and talk them out of a whistle. Hell, I've had entire halfs with one or no scrums and I think I'm doing well AND so are the players.

One last thought before I go brush my teeth then proceed to my days activity of shop-lifting - I notice Contest get's turned WAY up in cycles - same with Materiality but not in the same cycle. Meaning, right now, grassroots, collage, elite, pro is a crazy mess at the Ruck. As the youth see it on TV, they seem to bring it right to the pitch. Coaches too. We all know this.

So, some refs blow up everything they see at the Ruck in order to affect behavior going forward and some do exactly the opposite - but rarely do I see the same ref change his approach in the same season. (when I asked a senior ref why he didn't call any of the Gate infractions he said 'The Gate, that's just a suggestion.' I guess we know which way he's turning his dial.

 

[Pegleg]

Football law 11

[h=3]"Offside position[/h] It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position."


and

[h=3]"Offence[/h] A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:

• interfering with play or
• interfering with an opponent or
• gaining an advantage by being in that position"

In other words You are only liable to be pingged if your being in an offside position confers a material advantage on you.

So football clearly includes a specific reference to in it its laws.

If "ME" applied well in rugby union? I would say clearly not, some times it is done well but not always.

 

[crossref]

Trust me, I'm saying 'back foot' about twenty times before I blow it up. Same with, hands, release, roll away, lost, release the leg (I just learned that one on this site!), etc. I would rather keep the match going and talk them out of a whistle. Hell,.

Now that might be a problem!
Whistle the first three, not the twenty third.. And they stop. THEN you can ignore the immaterial one

 

[Pegleg]

Okay, all that being said - I look at Materiality as completely different from Contest. For one thing, Contest is mentioned several times in the IRB Law Application Guidelines where Material is only used in reference to clothing.

In the "Principles of the game" at the front of the law book (page 21) we have:

"Application
There is an over-riding obligation on the players to observe the Laws and to respect the principles of fair play.
The Laws must be applied in such a way as to ensure that the Game is played according to the principles of play.
The referee and touch judges can achieve this through fairness, consistency, sensitivity and, at the highest levels,
management. In return, it is the responsibility of coaches, captains and players to respect the authority of the match
officials."
The underlined part is where I take my inference from that a we "manage" a game, we take material effect into account.

I feel like when I turn up Materiality, I'm turning down Contest. Conversely, when I turn up Contest with little regard to Materiality, I'm not allowing the advancing team to continue.

Again as I previously have stated if you split the two you will have an issue. If a contest is prevented then the offence IS material.

BUT, in the back of my mind, I hear this little voice say '...yes but, are you just rewarding the team that is taking advantage of the center refs allowing their team to infringe on laws and therefor reinforce that behavior?'

I am not sure what a "centre ref" is. But again IF the offence is material then ping it. If a team is taking advantage of it (an offence) then: That offence IS material.

Trust me, I'm saying 'back foot' about twenty times before I blow it up. Same with, hands, release, roll away, lost, release the leg (I just learned that one on this site!), etc. I would rather keep the match going and talk them out of a whistle. Hell, I've had entire halfs with one or no scrums and I think I'm doing well AND so are the players.

Why are you saying anything 20 times? If they do not respond to your preventative warnings blow.

Ask Tell Ping. If they do not respond to your "advice" then you go to the whistle and, possibly, cards.

I notice Contest get's turned WAY up in cycles - same with Materiality but not in the same cycle. Meaning, right now, grassroots, collage, elite, pro is a crazy mess at the Ruck. As the youth see it on TV, they seem to bring it right to the pitch. Coaches too. We all know this.

Again as I previously have stated if you split the two you will have an issue. If a contest is prevented then the offence IS material.

So, some refs blow up everything they see at the Ruck in order to affect behavior going forward and some do exactly the opposite

As I said there are examples of good application of "ME" and there are poor examples. The "mood" of a game will adjust how you manage a game. If it is "fractious" then both "ME" and advantage may not be played with the whistle coming quickly to help keep a lid on potential flashpoints.

(when I asked a senior ref why he didn't call any of the Gate infractions he said 'The Gate, that's just a suggestion.' I guess we know which way he's turning his dial.

Whilst the "Gate" is not specifically named, the law is clear that players must come from behind the back foot. I suggest that you respectfully refer your "senior" ref to the following law:-
Law 15.6 (d) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the
ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal
line.
Sanction: Penalty kick

 

[Patrick]

Now that might be a problem!
Whistle the first three, not the twenty third.. And they stop. THEN you can ignore the immaterial one

Obviously I was exaggerating to make a point.

 

[Crucial]

As an (ex) player, I can offer the opinion that calling on materiality is much appreciated but only if the refs opinion matches your own

A good example of this is dummy runners and whether they get called for obstruction. Obviously for the ref the easy way to judge materiality is contact with defenders in close proximity to the ball. From a defending team's pov though much damage can be done by attacking side players ahead of the ball interfering with both sight and running lines. This form of attack is accepted as being 'creative' even though it does often create material effect through breaking a law. The only way around this for good game management is to make the boundary clear and be consistent in application.

It's probably the hardest part of the game for spectators to understand and the major cause for frustration and, dare I say, referee abuse. The spectator/ coach/ player sees an obvious infraction of the Laws that goes unpunished and concludes that the ref is either incompetent or biased. Even if the ref was to continuously call 'no effect' for all to hear, his judgement of effect would be questioned.

The example used in the OP is a good one and was seen to cause frustration for SH teams this time last year on their tour up north. SH teams are coached strongly to make instant judgement call on whether it is worth joining a tackle situation or not. As soon as an attacking player and ball is sealed off by arriving teammates going past and over the ball you are of more benefit to join the D line than join the breakdown. The material effect is that the attacking team continues to get clean ball because of their infringements yet the ref is reluctant to call it because the instinct of the defender is to not force the issue. Best you can do is for the captain to convey this to the ref and hope he warns the other team.

NZ v Ireland last year is a case in point. McCaw mentioned to NO often that Irish arriving players were going to ground which is why the ABs weren't contesting. I think NO said 'if you aren't contesting, I'm not calling" so the ABs adjusted and sent a player in to push the point. The penalty that led to the last ditch try was for an Irish player going off his feet past the ball, two ruck in a row. At the first one NO was implored to act as he said he would, at the second he blew the whistle.

 

[Ian_Cook]

As an (ex) player, I can offer the opinion that calling on materiality is much appreciated but only if the refs opinion matches your own

A good example of this is dummy runners and whether they get called for obstruction. Obviously for the ref the easy way to judge materiality is contact with defenders in close proximity to the ball. From a defending team's pov though much damage can be done by attacking side players ahead of the ball interfering with both sight and running lines. This form of attack is accepted as being 'creative' even though it does often create material effect through breaking a law. The only way around this for good game management is to make the boundary clear and be consistent in application.

It's probably the hardest part of the game for spectators to understand and the major cause for frustration and, dare I say, referee abuse. The spectator/ coach/ player sees an obvious infraction of the Laws that goes unpunished and concludes that the ref is either incompetent or biased. Even if the ref was to continuously call 'no effect' for all to hear, his judgement of effect would be questioned.

The example used in the OP is a good one and was seen to cause frustration for SH teams this time last year on their tour up north. SH teams are coached strongly to make instant judgement call on whether it is worth joining a tackle situation or not. As soon as an attacking player and ball is sealed off by arriving teammates going past and over the ball you are of more benefit to join the D line than join the breakdown. The material effect is that the attacking team continues to get clean ball because of their infringements yet the ref is reluctant to call it because the instinct of the defender is to not force the issue. Best you can do is for the captain to convey this to the ref and hope he warns the other team.

NZ v Ireland last year is a case in point. McCaw mentioned to NO often that Irish arriving players were going to ground which is why the ABs weren't contesting. I think NO said 'if you aren't contesting, I'm not calling" so the ABs adjusted and sent a player in to push the point. The penalty that led to the last ditch try was for an Irish player going off his feet past the ball, two ruck in a row. At the first one NO was implored to act as he said he would, at the second he blew the whistle.

Yes, and this applies in other areas too, particularly the line-out and subsequent maul formation.

However, while referees deal well with the material effect of "what is happening now", they often overlook the material effect of "what is going to happen next". Offside in the midfield backs of the team not in possession is a case in point.

Quite often, the midfield backs of the team not in possession on their opponent's right, for example, might be offside but because the opponents go left, the referee thinks it is not material. What if the opponents went left because their SH or acting SH saw the opponents on his right were offside and he didn't think the referee had picked them up.

For this reason, I think advantage ought to be called against offside backs regardless of materiality, as the referee doesn't really know if it is material until what happens next, actually happens. It appears to be a common tactic in the modern game for a single outside back to rush up ahead of his defensive line to cut off the pass to the outside. Allowing this player any kind of a head start, even as little as half a metre, gives a big leg up to the team not in possession, and can make the difference between their opponents getting the ball outside him, or not, or can even lead to giving up an interception. Unpunished offside in the midfield is a blight on the game and stifles open back-play, probably more than any other infringement.

 

[Pegleg]

And you illustrate the point well. If the facts were as you describe I would say, the point was the offences by Ireland WERE material. Sadly Nigel forced a potential flashpoint by "demanding" the All Blacks "compete in order for there to be "material effect" that for me is wrong.

It's a chicken and egg situation.

Not straight so I don't hook / jump

or

I'm not hooking / jumping so the ref ignore the not straight.


The better ref will generally get it right more often than refs like me.

 

[DrSTU]

Hmm, I don't think you are.

I can tell you exactly how many times I issue a command, once and once only.

Was it PK that sat down with you?

Obviously I was exaggerating to make a point.