Materiality - is it dead or just dying?

[Pegleg]

I think Ian has a point. We should look at ALL the tools. Material effect, advantage, whistle, Warnings and cards.

Defending side offences generally will be advantage whereas offences by the attacking side will often mean material effect. Of course this is not a hard and fast rule. also the type of offence, where the offence took place etc will affect how you manage it.


A winger offside by a foot on the far side away from a line out is unlikely to be material whereas an inside centre offside by the same distance just 20 feet from a ruck is far more likely to affect the non offending sides options. So the first manage with a word (ME) whereas the second would be ringing the advantage bell.

Of course if after playing the "material effect" card the players don't learn the you have to move upwards with the sanctions.

 

[Rushforth]

...

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.

You make excellent points otherwise, but I disagree with this.

The purpose of backs being 10 metres behind the lineout is to solve the blight of the 60s. I don't mind if they are only 9 metres, or rather, I don't mind if both teams use the same definition of 10 metres.

I still completely ignore backs at scrum time. At the line-out I generally focus on the defending backs after the ball is caught, what with the attacking maul - if any - being relatively uncontested these days.

For me the ruck remains the hard one.

 

[Pegleg]

Why do you completely ignore the backs at a scrum?

 

[Rushforth]

Why do you completely ignore the backs at a scrum?

I lied. They tend to stand 7 metres back initially, at my level, but they will not stay back the 5m behind the back foot if their pack is pushed back.

At scrum time I focus on the forwards, not to the complete exclusion of the backs, but even with the modern (safe) scrum I spend 98% of my focus on the packs and both 9s. They are material.

 

[ChrisR]

Patrick, you can't separate 'contest' from 'material effect'. For a contest to be fair any/all illegal actions must have no material effect on the outcome. It is for the referee to judge a. the legality of action and then b. its materiality.

The fine line of 'material effect' falls somewhere between either ignoring all or whistling all. It also requires the referee to make the distinction between playing to the limit of the law (or the referees tolerance) and playing to the limit of opportunity. In the modern game the jackler has a small window of opportunity and success/failure will depend both on his assessment of that opportunity and that of the referee. If his assessment (and subsequent actions) is 90% in his favor (ie. doesn’t draw a PK and gets a turnover 20% of the time) then he’s having a pretty good game. Does that make him a cheat or a competitor? You, the referee, have to make that call 100% of the time.

From Crucial previously: "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."

Totally agree with that paragraph. It takes a ref with a thick skin or a fine set of cojones to totally tune out the “C’mon, ref …blah, blah, blah …” The path of the pedant is an easy one as they can always say: “If you don’t like the sound of the whistle then play to the laws”.

I like this thread, more later.

 

[Ian_Cook]

In the modern game the jackler has a small window of opportunity and success/failure will depend both on his assessment of that opportunity and that of the referee. If his assessment (and subsequent actions) is 90% in his favor (ie. doesn’t draw a PK and gets a turnover 20% of the time) then he’s having a pretty good game. Does that make him a cheat or a competitor? You, the referee, have to make that call 100% of the time.

This^^^

So often players like McCaw, Pocock and Brussouw get labelled as "cheats", but what they really are is very, very good at aligning their assessment of the jackler's "window of opportunity" with that of the referee, or put differently, they test the boundaries of the referee and adjust their technique to play as much as possible within those boundaries.

I can't speak for the other two as I don't have their stats, but McCaw doesn't get it wrong very often. Two YC in 135 tests, and one YC in 165 domestic (NPC + SR). That's 3 cards in 300 first class matches.

 

[Pegleg]

I lied. They tend to stand 7 metres back initially, at my level, but they will not stay back the 5m behind the back foot if their pack is pushed back.

At scrum time I focus on the forwards, not to the complete exclusion of the backs, but even with the modern (safe) scrum I spend 98% of my focus on the packs and both 9s. They are material.

If the defensive 10 (in particular) is less than 5 back he is likely to impact on the game and therefore his offence is material.

It would help discussion if people did not lie.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

If the defensive 10 (in particular) is less than 5 back he is likely to impact on the game and therefore his offence is material.

It would help discussion if people did not lie.

At my PMB where I have FRs 9 10 Captain I will tell #10 that if the scrum goes back his way then he (and all the backs) go back with it to maintain the 5m. I will look at the #10 ("non throwing in side usually) after I have made the mark for the scrum and when the ball has gone in the scrum and is coming back I will have a look again - a shout usually remedies any sneaker-uppers. If not PK in most situations as #8 has picked up and is running towards #10 (and perhaps has popped to #9) or ball has gone to bc #10 - either way material.

Similarly dopey blindside wingers are wont to not be back 5m - the argument could be not 5m is immaterial if ball goes open but has ball gone open because the opportunity to go blind is stifled by winger not 5m?

 

[ChrisR]

"Similarly dopey blindside wingers are wont to not be back 5m - the argument could be not 5m is immaterial if ball goes open but has ball gone open because the opportunity to go blind is stifled by winger not 5m?"

Not an easy call. My guess would be that if the play is 'go blind' then there will be other players going in that direction so they're not likely to shift to the wide side because a "dopey winger" is up 4-5m (and is a poor defensive place when the ball goes wide). If he's up level with the ball ....? That is another matter.

 

[Browner]

I suspect RMcCaws YC record would be higher if he werent the captain, and the referee wants him on the pitch as part of the To5.(Captain gets slightly more leeway than any other player in my matches!)

Materiality IS the hardest concept for players / coaches and spectators to get , absolutely, it forms a central part of my PMB discussion with the Captains, as its their job to quell disquiet and manage player expectations etc.....

 

[crossref]

Obviously I was exaggerating to make a point.

yes, I know, I didn't really think you gave twenty warnings before a PK.
however still, you way you phrased it in your post - and about talking them out of a PK - made me think that perhaps you are in a style of trying lots of different things -- and keeping a PK as a last resort. I just don't think that works, sometimes actually using PK/FK as the very first resort works much better --- especially on offences that are completely clear and voluntary, like not-straight, or not behind back foot. Then they stop doing it. just a passing thought

 

[Ian_Cook]

I suspect RMcCaws YC record would be higher if he werent the captain...

...except that all three YC have been when he was captain (All Blacks and Crusaders)

 

[crossref]

context
We don't really know if three YC is a small number unless we know the stats for other players playing in the same position.
What's the average number of games per YC for international flankers. How many has Robshaw received for instance?

 

[ChrisR]

From the OP:
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.

Patrick, the example is rather extreme but it is appropriate for this thread.

Red get 4 players over the ball before Blue get any. Blue has a decision to make: Contest for the ball and form a ruck or play on.

If Red are indeed bridging (sealing off the ball) then by contesting they may get the penalty or they may not.

Blue's other choice is not to form a ruck and have a real tactical advantage. Red have committed six players to recycle the ball (BC, 4 over the ball and a SH) and are now playing 9 vs. 14 (Blue tackler on the deck) and no off-side lines as no ruck formed.

Who has the upper hand? Depends on all player alignments does is not? My point is "materiality" can only be determined by the larger context.

 

[Browner]

Imagine how high RMcCaws YC record would be IF he didnt get his 'captains discretionary allowance' ??? , up near the 599 YC mark in his 300 matches would be a good guess! :eng::usa::ireland::wales::arg::scot::rsa::france::aus::chair:

 

[OB..]

From the OP:
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.

Patrick, the example is rather extreme but it is appropriate for this thread.

Red get 4 players over the ball before Blue get any. Blue has a decision to make: Contest for the ball and form a ruck or play on.

If Red are indeed bridging (sealing off the ball) then by contesting they may get the penalty or they may not.

Blue's other choice is not to form a ruck and have a real tactical advantage. Red have committed six players to recycle the ball (BC, 4 over the ball and a SH) and are now playing 9 vs. 14 (Blue tackler on the deck) and no off-side lines as no ruck formed.

Who has the upper hand? Depends on all player alignments does is not? My point is "materiality" can only be determined by the larger context.

And Red now know that if they can get players there early they will be allowed to use an illegal technique to prevent Blue from trying to win the ball. It the same argument as allowing a crooked throw at a lineout if the opponents don't jump.

Can somebody come up with a really solid example of materiality?

 

[Rushforth]

Can somebody come up with a really solid example of materiality?

Red is not 10 at a quick PK. Blue taps and runs straight into closest red player. Ref calls "not 10", and red players don't really slow down blue action. Eventually blue knock on 15 meters up from the initial mark. Ref hasn't called either "advantage" or "advantage over", just the aforementioned "not 10".

Was it material that red were technically offside?

No idea if that is what you would consider solid, OB.., it is just the best I can do off the top of my head.

 

[Browner]

Can somebody come up with a really solid example of materiality?

Ill try.

At a ruck, Red 6 is offside (beyond the HMF ) on the blindside/LHS. Red 7 is onside at the same HMF albeit on the RHS/open side.

Green9 extracts the ball and runs past the outside shoulder of Red7 on the openside , Red 7 chases G9 leaving a gap between R7 & ruck.( At this moment Red6 offsideness is immaterial.

However Green9 offloads the ball to Green 10 who runs a switch-direction running line with him, and would likely zip through the ruck- gap vacated by Red7 , except R6 has come around the ruck offside and tackles G10 just before he can run through the aforementioned gap.

IF R6 had been onside he wouldnt have been in a position to make that Tackle, so his previous immaterial offsideness has now become material because he gains and Green 10 doesn't from R6's involvement.

Any good?

 

[crossref]

what are you looking for OB? an example of something that is an offence but clearly immaterial, like the far winger 40m away, just in front of the back foot of a ruck? or an example of something that is borderline.

borderline - what about someone in front of a kicker who doesn't stop as he should but jogs forward until he is put onside by the kicker.
Here materiality is all about relative speeds and distances - how far in front, how fast was he jogging? / how far did he travel before he was over taken, was he running and slowed to a jog, or stationary and started jogging / how far ahead was the ball anyway?

 

[OB..]

Ill try.

At a ruck, Red 6 is offside (beyond the HMF ) on the blindside/LHS. Red 7 is onside at the same HMF albeit on the RHS/open side.

Green9 extracts the ball and runs past the outside shoulder of Red7 on the openside , Red 7 chases G9 leaving a gap between R7 & ruck.( At this moment Red6 offsideness is immaterial.

The argument against is that but for R6#'s positioning, the G9 might have gone to his side.

Ideally I would like a clear cut case that would be readily understood by an ordinary punter. THe offside law itself tends to deal with the matter, so does not really help.