Query 2. Should We Consider Materiality?

[didds]

That would be easier, if anything. The reason you might favour not blowing up a marginal call when there's no contest is for continuity. See also: scrum feeds.

*shrug* outside of really extreme situation - 5th XV, U13 s etc where skill levels may be poor, or possibly or injuries/selection issues mean that you might have a XV (or XII!) full of wingers lacking the normally expected skills so you are really trying to get something worthwhile happening- just tell them to get it right!



didds

 

[didds]

The throwing happens before the contest, the pressure is the same.

well there you are then. No excuse to let it go, because the throw is wrong whatever. letting them get away with it because the oppo has decided not to jump this time is just rewarding poor play.

didds

 

[didds]

What option - not jumping and banking on a skewed throw?

No - just not jumping.

i'll add that some defensive setups are such that it is clear that there will be no jump.

didds

 

[didds]

Then I'm afraid I don't understand - what unfair advantage are the attackers getting throwing slightly skew if the defence are focussing on defending the maul rather than contesting the lineout catch? In what way have the defenders had their option to do so "all but removed"?

because they are not expected to throw straight and catch straight. Which the alws expect them to.

Why not just chuck it straight to the receiver? would you not ping that? Really? If you would - where is now your line of when you do and don't ping? 26 degrees ? 15 degrees? 10 degrees? 5 degrees? and how do you mjeasure that consistently in a dynamic game?

What is wrong with expecting a straight throw whatever?

didds

 

[L'irlandais]

Similar definitions in the Laws.

The purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly, safely and fairly, after a minor infringement or a stoppage.

The purpose of the lineout is to restart play, quickly, safely and fairly, after the ball has gone into touch, with a throw-in between two lines of players.

If we don't ensure a fair contest by having the ball straight down the middle, then we will rue the resulting shenanigans which slow down the set-piece restarts and see safety go out the window.

Of course, crooked feeds have been discussed previously on RRF. Passionate topic...

There used to be a nice graphic showing how crooked in in the lineout is far easier to spot due to the length thrown in comparison to how short scrum feeds are. (BIICFI)

 

[SimonSmith]

because they are not expected to throw straight and catch straight. Which the alws expect them to.

Why not just chuck it straight to the receiver? would you not ping that? Really? If you would - where is now your line of when you do and don't ping? 26 degrees ? 15 degrees? 10 degrees? 5 degrees? and how do you mjeasure that consistently in a dynamic game?

What is wrong with expecting a straight throw whatever?

didds

Nothing.

"we were set up to sack him the moment he hit the deck. Because of where the throw went, he used his outside arm and there was no opportunity for the sack"

 

[DocY]

Nothing.

"we were set up to sack him the moment he hit the deck. Because of where the throw went, he used his outside arm and there was no opportunity for the sack"

I take your point, but being pedantic, using his outside arm is an infringement.

 

[ChuckieB]

For anyone not able to spot a crooked scrum feed I'll offer to lend my glasses!

 

[chbg]

I take your point, but being pedantic, using his outside arm only is an infringement.

19.10(j)

 

[L'irlandais]

In the context of the lineout ball, the point was a throw half a degree squint travelling 15 or 20 mètres is visible to the eye.

If it's preventing a fair contest for the ball, it can cost you the game, when the margin between winning and losing is small.

 

[VM75]

Why is it so difficult to just impose the same strictures at a lineout whether the opposition jump or not? Otherwise when the oppo don;t jump why not just throw it straight to the receiver and do away with the jump and catch?

Frankly if a team with no contest in the air and thus under no pressure cannot get a throw straight, then they don't deserve any leeway. Taking an approach that a team has to jump in order to "deserve" a not straight is deciding unilaterally that a perfectly legitimate defensive option has been all but removed.


didds

Didds, we routinely see lifting of the catcher before the throw [& it's rarely penalised], so when I see only one team in the air as the thrower launches his throw which then is caught by the only player up in the air then it's obvious the opponents aren't bothered to contest.

However if the opponents respond to the jump timing by lifting a contesting catcher with slightly delayed [responding timing] then thats a bonafide contest & therefore the throw needs to be straight[ish] so that both jumpers can try to catch it.

Im advocating materiality is applied for 'concession of the contest in the air' as there is virtually always a contest when players remain foot rooted.

If both sets of players are happy, and both coaches, & the game has less 'technical infringement' stoppages then what's the issue?

 

[didds]

well youve clearly not spoken to me as a coach before a game. i think its a stupid idea. And yes, obviously I would require you to referee "my squad" in the same manner.

I note nobody has covered the logical conclusion of the thrower just throwing the ball to the receiver. And this line has to equally accept that the scrum half may as well just stick the ball into the second row at a scrum because the oppo hooker won't be striking. (look at his feet before the ball comes in. )

This is only an "issue" because this waffle about non contested creates the issue. Bah.

didds

 

[didds]

r then it's obvious the opponents aren't bothered to contest.

what if they are not contesting because they perceive the throw is crooked so they cant get there anyway? So now they don't jump, and you will permit even more crooked throwing as they don't jump, so now they are even less likely to jump so congratulations you've created a situation whereby one side can't actually COMPETE for the ball and the other side can win it all day whatever.

I take it you permit 2nd row feeds in a similar vein in scrummages with oppo hookers that don't strike?


didds

didds

 

[OB..]

Didds, we routinely see lifting of the catcher before the throw [& it's rarely penalised], so when I see only one team in the air as the thrower launches his throw which then is caught by the only player up in the air then it's obvious the opponents aren't bothered to contest.

However if the opponents respond to the jump timing by lifting a contesting catcher with slightly delayed [responding timing] then thats a bonafide contest & therefore the throw needs to be straight[ish] so that both jumpers can try to catch it.

Im advocating materiality is applied for 'concession of the contest in the air' as there is virtually always a contest when players remain foot rooted.

If both sets of players are happy, and both coaches, & the game has less 'technical infringement' stoppages then what's the issue?

If the throwing team lifts early, you should obviously deal with it.

If they don't, then the thrower will not know for sure when he throws if the opponents are going to jump or not. You are saying that if he judges that they are not going to jump, it is acceptable for him to deliberately throw off line. Is the small amount you might allow him to gain really significant?

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

If a throw is not straight at my level, 7, I may let it go once if the opposition haven't competed but I will warn teams that if the throw goes straight to the catcher again I will blow. winds teams up and is a potential flashpoint. I want a fair contest.
Of course this logic only applies at my level.
In showbiz rugby they do occasionally pull teams for not straight the immediately let the opposition throw it straight into the second row. Boils my p*ss��

 

[OB..]

I have just googled "materiality rugby" and found:

www.dorsetandwiltsrefs.org.uk/documents/1_Laws_&_Principles.pdf
(an RFU presentation which includes Materiality and Contextual Judgement.)

rugbyindia.in/phocadownload/Materiality.ppt
(An IRB presentation )

and, inevitably, a 100+ post archived thread on here from 2008 entitled What is materiality.

 

[Ian_Cook]

There used to be a nice graphic showing how crooked in in the lineout is far easier to spot due to the length thrown in comparison to how short scrum feeds are. (BIICFI)

A = straight
B = 1°
C = 2°
D = 3°

 

[Pegleg]

Sadly we are seeing scrums go unpunished when the ball is fed directly behing the props inner foot. There is no excuse for letting those go.

 

[Taff]

... If both sets of players are happy, and both coaches, & the game has less 'technical infringement' stoppages then what's the issue?

Which begs the question - do we discuss this at the PMB, to see what the players and coaches want? It is their game after all and if both coaches agree that a bit of leeway is acceptable at uncontested throws, then who are we to argue?

A = straight B = 1° C = 2° D = 3°

A good graphic, but it shows how difficult it is for the thrower to get it bang on 100% perfectly straight every time. If he's out by just 1% it is noticeable. For clarity, the only ones I let go on Saturday were the C or D ones but there were only a handful all game and even then only if they were uncontested.

... the thrower will not know for sure when he throws if the opponents are going to jump or not. You are saying that if he judges that they are not going to jump, it is acceptable for him to deliberately throw off line. Is the small amount you might allow him to gain really significant?

Exactly. The thrower won't know if the ball will be contested or not until he's already thrown it.

... I note nobody has covered the logical conclusion of the thrower just throwing the ball to the receiver.

There's allowing a reasonable tolerance and .... there's taking the piss. Chucking it to the receiver would be taking the piss.

To me, the only thing we have to decide is does the "reasonable tolerance" change if the opposition contest? Using Ian Cooks graphic above, I doubt many would pull up a thrower if he's 1 degree out. 3 degrees? Personally, I reckon it depends if it's material ie whether it's contested, but the opposition can always make it "material" any time they like just by contesting. It doesn't even have to be a good contest.

... look at his feet before the ball comes in.

But at a scrum, BOTH Hookers feet should be on the floor before the ball gets thrown in.

 

[SimonSmith]

Sadly we are seeing scrums go unpunished when the ball is fed directly behing the props inner foot. There is no excuse for letting those go.

Not at our levels - I tell the 9s what I want. Then if they don't comply, I nail them for it. It's not asking a lot really, and round here, some scrums are good enough to win against the head, which delights me no end.