Query 2. Should We Consider Materiality?

[Pegleg]

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.

Sorry, I was referring to the elite game. There is no will at that end of the game to resolve the issues (not problem as elite referees do not see it as one).

Grassroots has little issue with feeds, scrum collapses etc but we get la changes etc dropped on us because of the elite games problems whilst they happily ignore them.

 

[didds]

If they don't, then the thrower will not know for sure when he throws if the opponents are going to jump or not.

all agreed with what OB wrote, but I'll add there are defensive setups that make it clear that nobody will be jumping.

didds

 

[Rich_NL]

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

I said a marginal call... I'd really only advocate relaxing the margins, and/or letting it go with a comment the first time. It's certainly not meant to be "anything goes".

 

[didds]

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

There are defensive setups that make it clear nobody will be jumping. Of course they wont'; bne used aty every likneout but its disingenuous to suggest its never known.

Here's a classsic example. Which of white is ever going to jump? [ I can;t work out how to freeze frame this if at all - sorry].

http://img2.thejournal.ie/inline/1773924/original/?width=643&version=1773924

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

why is is "taking the piss"? You've already accepted that a side not competing for the ball has lost the opportunity to gain the option on a squint throw. So just get the ball to the receiver and lets get the game going surely?

If not then where is the line drawn? When does "straight enough" become "taking the piss"?

[QUOTE}
But at a scrum, BOTH Hookers feet should be on the floor before the ball gets thrown in.[/QUOTE]

Yes. But its clear looking at a hooker's feet whether he wil;l be attempting to strike. His weight will be on one foot with the other on the balls of the foot with no weight on it. Both feet back, hooker totally square, both front of boots firly into the ground - that bloke is pushing not striking. Its not difficult to spot.

didds

 

[didds]

I said a marginal call... I'd really only advocate relaxing the margins, and/or letting it go with a comment the first time. It's certainly not meant to be "anything goes".

Then why bother with "once" ?

didds

 

[Rich_NL]

To prevent it escalating to a point where you do have to blow it up. As I said earlier, it's a tradeoff between enforcement and continuity.

If it endangers people or damages the ref-player relationship or ruins the game for someone, blow it up. You absolutely don't want to discourage a team from competing for the ball, for example, but a throw 18" skew is not a marked advantage to one 6" off that you'd otherwise allow, if all of the defenders are crouched and waiting for the maul.

If you're stopping a game of rugby from breaking out for every technical infringement to prove that you know the rules and are determined to enforce them to the letter, you might be the only one enjoying yourself.

 

[didds]

, but a throw 18" skew is not a marked advantage to one 6" off that you'd otherwise allow, if all of the defenders are crouched and waiting for the maul. .

But the throwing team might be going off the top anyway. So why not make that 60 inches and just chuck it to the receiver?

WADR to you all, this is not about being uber precdise. You are just now justifying something that has been dreamt us as "being smart".

Clearly I'm in a minority of one. Strangely also one of those coaches who apparently are all for it.

didds

 

[L'irlandais]

Didds,
I don't think you are in a minority of one. I was just staying out of it. For me "D" is the limit. Any decent hooker can throw it straight down the channel. D is like 40cm off the mark, almost half the 1m width. It doesn't matter if the opposition are not contesting the ball in the air, crooked in is an infringement, mores the fool him to get pinged for it if the other team were not even contesting in the air. Certainly, time to have a word with the thrower. If he genuinely cannot manage better next time, that's his problem not the ref's. Scrumhalves only feed the ball into the second row, if you let them. Ping it first time and you will not see it again all game, since his hooker will likely bend his ear. And as any receiver who has had his ears reddened will know, there is some small satisfaction when your hooker gets pinged at line-out time there after.

A = straight
B = 1°
C = 2°
D = 3°

 

[Rich_NL]

But the throwing team might be going off the top anyway. So why not make that 60 inches and just chuck it to the receiver?

WADR to you all, this is not about being uber precdise. You are just now justifying something that has been dreamt us as "being smart".

Clearly I'm in a minority of one. Strangely also one of those coaches who apparently are all for it.

didds

60 inches would obviously damage ref credibility; it's up to everyone to decide for themselves where to draw the line, and depends on a lot of factors.

Contest and continuity are the principles of the game, hardly this season's latest fad!

 

[ChrisR]

Didds, I think you might be in the majority.

As a fellow coach I'd be OK with a referee who wants it straight every lineout & every scrum regardless of who's contesting. I'd also be OK with a referee who required strict adherence only when contested.

What hurts the game is arbitrary whistles. Therefore, I do agree that if the referee adheres to a strict standard then there is little chance of being arbitrary.

LOs and scrums are just restarts and if the non-throwers don't want to contest but instead focus on defending the subsequent possession then the squint throw isn't really material and that was the OPs question.

 

[didds]

Well... in terms of player development and expectations I think it is material. Its a closed skill that is not perfcormed dynamically and where simple errors due to the pace of the game etc is relevant. eg stepping up offside momentarily.

If A FB knocks on with the nearest opponent 40m away we still expect a scrum to be awarded. Where's the materiality in that?

whatever.

didds

 

[ChrisR]

That's not a fair analogy as knock-on are always material but I see your point.

Perhaps the analogy could be where the SH just nudges the ball forward before taking it from a ruck. Something that I've allowed in the past. Was I wrong there?

 

[didds]

That's not a fair analogy as knock-on are always material

how is a knock on with the nearest opponent 40m away material? knock on and consequent pick up and play on isn't denying the opposition the ball. They are now still 30m away by that time.

didds

 

[didds]

Perhaps the analogy could be where the SH just nudges the ball forward before taking it from a ruck. Something that I've allowed in the past. Was I wrong there?

well, its n ot denying anybody the ball in reality is it from that position.

but its always (correctly IMO) pinged.

didds

 

[ChrisR]

The knock-on is a peculiar law that has a major influence in the outcome of matches. What if knock-ons were not violations, wouldn't that change the game? Just thinking, not proposing.

 

[Pegleg]

Didds, I think you might be in the majority.

As a fellow coach I'd be OK with a referee who wants it straight every lineout & every scrum regardless of who's contesting. I'd also be OK with a referee who required strict adherence only when contested.

What hurts the game is arbitrary whistles. Therefore, I do agree that if the referee adheres to a strict standard then there is little chance of being arbitrary.

LOs and scrums are just restarts and if the non-throwers don't want to contest but instead focus on defending the subsequent possession then the squint throw isn't really material and that was the OPs question.

You mean when a referee at a pro 12 game pings the last scrum of the game for not straight after 79 minutes of "feed the 8"?

 

[ChuckieB]

In my opinion any direct infraction by the player handling the ball which requires a turnover of possesion has to be considered material.

Scrum feed, incorrect throw or whatever . It's in the ball handlers gift to get it right. Ping it

 

[SimonSmith]

I'll try that on Saturday Chris. I guarantee Mark Lambourn will die from an apoplectic fit. Tim Brown too, probably.

What a great way of cleansing the ranks fo coaches!

 

[Dickie E]

What if knock-ons were not violations, wouldn't that change the game?

A referee colleague (not so active now) used to suggest that a knock-on was its own punishment (ie loss of possession, loss of time/space, etc) and should be called as play on. I had some sympathy with this view.

 

[ChuckieB]

A referee colleague (not so active now) used to suggest that a knock-on was its own punishment (ie loss of possession, loss of time/space, etc) and should be called as play on. I had some sympathy with this view.

Can you please clarify? I can't immediately picture anything other than a KO advantage, i.e. where the ball has got into the possession of the opponent anyway, that allows t/o without play being having to be stopped?