Materiality - is it dead or just dying?

[Phil E]

Browner

BOTH/ALL parties have been told to drop it, so WHY do YOU have keep going with your last post?

I am now adding my weight as a third moderator to say LEAVE IT and get back on track.

Any more off topic posts will be deleted.

 

[OB..]

Red has clearly won the ruck but ball is stuck. Red ruck participant eases ball backwards with his hand.

Yes, I'll buy that one. If done in the correct circumstances, does not even merit a warning. Similarly we allow a scrumhalf to (technically) play the ball in the ruck.

At a kick off, chaser comes out of the stalls early, realises his mistake, and retreats.

Not sure. Could there be a ploy to get the opponents to react in a way that gives you an unfair advantage? Certainly merits a warning.

Prop loses his bind in the scrum, pushes off ground and rebinds with no impact on scrum.

No. This gives too much scope to a tricky prop. Hard to be sure it had no impact. Reset the scrum if unsure about the intention.

 

[OB..]

► Line-out participant of the non-throwing team closes the gap early/jumps early but the ball goes past him to the intended catcher who plays the ball of the top and the throwing team clear out onto the backs.

This is advantage. Materiality applies when your own side has technically infringed.

► SH of the non-throwing team oversteps the offside line with both feet, but then retires onside immediately, and the ball is cleared to the backs.

Again, this is advantage.

 

[Pegleg]

please, continue. "poor management" for a low penalty match where the players are complying....please explain.

It really is simple.

There is a difference between obtaining a "buy in" to you mangement and thus reducing the Penalty count and reducing the Penalty count by not giving penalties where they should be given.

Statistics need to be "real" and not contrived. Of course if by use of Ask and Tell we don't get to Ping that is great. But all too often we see referees bang out the "not material" mantra when it clearly is. That is wrong. See several posts in this thread by different posters for examples.

 

[Ian_Cook]

This is advantage. Materiality applies when your own side has technically infringed.

Again, this is advantage.

But is it called advantage every time OB?

I see the second one a LOT at top level rugby; I reckon the non-throwing in SHs breach the offside line at least one in three or one in four scrums (remember he is not allowed either foot in front of the ball whereas the throwing in SH is allowed one foot), and I cannot remember the last time I saw the non-throwing in SH penalised or draw an advantage call for offside. Most referees appear to treat this offence as immaterial so long as the throwing in SH gets the ball away clear and free.

I think what you are looking for is near impossible, as any offence can have advantage called against except those listed in Law 8.3 and those have to blown regardless of materiality.

But thinking about the scrum perhaps there is one. When the ball is thrown into the scrum, if the strike is so quick that the ball flashes straight down channel 1 to the No. 8's feet before the SH has a chance to move, then he could technically be offside (both his feet in froint of the ball) for a moment or two, but you wouldn't call advantage for that and its immaterial so long as he moves back onside again.

 

[The Fat]

Materiality applies when your own side has technically infringed.

Sorry for being a lazy bugger. I haven't read the entire thread so happy to be set straight if I have missed something.
Are you saying that materiality ONLY applies to the team in possession? Everything else that the team not in possession does, must result in either a sanction or advantage?

 

[Pegleg]

Not for me. Scenario:

Ruck Ball "won" by White, Green hooker flops on top of the ruck nowhere near the ball. White 9 picks up the ball and passes it away.

Technically an offence by Green 2. Would you ping it first time? Not me. he's not disadvantaged White at all. In fact he's disadvantaged his own side by taking himself , albeit only temporary, out of the game. Manage with a word. Escalate if he does not learn.

 

[OB..]

Sorry for being a lazy bugger. I haven't read the entire thread so happy to be set straight if I have missed something.
Are you saying that materiality ONLY applies to the team in possession? Everything else that the team not in possession does, must result in either a sanction or advantage?

Basically, yes.

Red infringes, you can play advantage to Blue. (Law 8)
Red infringes, you might sometimes regard it as immaterial ie of no disadvantage to Blue. (Not generically in the law book, but covered in some cases eg Law 11.)

If the concept of materiality is equivalent to advantage, we obviously don't need it. Indeed allowing the two to overlap at all simply confuses the issue.

 

[Patrick]

Wow - what the hell happened while I was working, dealing with boys, dealing with rugby, reffing, getting my Thanksgiving in order!!!!

Browner - deep breaths Mate - the last thing I want to do on this site is incite hate and rage.

I look at these threads as connective tissue between the rather obtuse and some-times opaque Laws that we all live and breathe and mete out and actual discussion about said application.

Moving on...

For the most part, what great additions to this thread.

This is my take-away:

While Materiality is NOT dead - it seems to be falling into a couple categories:
- Part of a tool box for a less experienced refs (for the most part)
- Part of a tool box for VERY high level refs in the 'show' (I don't agree with this....)
- Controllable with talking a player out of a situation (once, maybe twice then PK)
- Being relegated to Advantage (for the most part)

Materiality for the sake of flow seems ridiculous at this point. Bad practices plans by coaches that only watch TV to get their match style CAN NOT transfer to the everyday field of play.

I love this site and love most of the comments - I applied almost everything yesterday (Saturday) to a couple D1 Collage matches I ran and found that in most cases, Advantage works more then deciding to let something go (Materiality).

Okay, now to piss everybody off, this weeks new thread will be about 'the gate' as a part of a longer discussion about the Ruck.

 

[Browner]

Wow - what the hell happened while I was working, dealing with boys, dealing with rugby, reffing, getting my Thanksgiving in order!!!!

Browner - deep breaths Mate - the last thing I want to do on this site is incite hate and rage.

I look at these threads as connective tissue between the rather obtuse and some-times opaque Laws that we all live and breathe and mete out and actual discussion about said application.

Moving on...

For the most part, what great additions to this thread.

This is my take-away:

While Materiality is NOT dead - it seems to be falling into a couple categories:
- Part of a tool box for a less experienced refs (for the most part)
- Part of a tool box for VERY high level refs in the 'show' (I don't agree with this....)
- Controllable with talking a player out of a situation (once, maybe twice then PK)
- Being relegated to Advantage (for the most part)

Materiality for the sake of flow seems ridiculous at this point. Bad practices plans by coaches that only watch TV to get their match style CAN NOT transfer to the everyday field of play.

I love this site and love most of the comments - I applied almost everything yesterday (Saturday) to a couple D1 Collage matches I ran and found that in most cases, Advantage works more then deciding to let something go (Materiality).

Okay, now to piss everybody off, this weeks new thread will be about 'the gate' as a part of a longer discussion about the Ruck.

Don't worry Patrick, your post didnt incite nor is deep breathing needed. Thanks anyway.

Materiality is probably the hardest concept for some spectators and some lower level players to accept.