Query 2. Should We Consider Materiality?

[crossref]

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?

the suggestion is a Law change, so that a knock-on is no-longer an offence.

I also am interested in that idea, and I'd love to see an ELV trial.

(NB a throw forward would still be an offence, as would a deliberate knock on)

 

[ChuckieB]

the suggestion is a Law change, so that a knock-on is no-longer an offence.

I also am interested in that idea, and I'd love to see an ELV trial.

(NB a throw forward would still be an offence, as would a deliberate knock on)

......and the fumbled catch or fumbled gather?

 

[VM75]

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

Didds you miss the bit where I said my PMB clarifies this - IF they go up to contest then it needs to be straight so that a fair contest can happen up there in the air , IF they don't go up to contest then straightness isn't now material as only one catcher was ever likely to catch it.

Scrums are notably different as you can win the ball without striking, i.e. you can shove your opponents off the ball, so no - I expect feeds to go along the centre line

 

[VM75]

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?

I'm saying that if only one team are up contesting AND it doesn't down then it's hardly material, throwers as always take risks with their throws & the timings. Get it wrong [either deliberately or through poor execution] & you risk turning over possession
How often do we see lifting commence after the ball is thrown nowadays. :deadhorse:

So provided the defending catcher is up & has a realistic prospect of catching (i.e. he's not 4 secs too late, or being lifted at the back when the ball arrives at the front ] then "contested-not straight enough" applies.

If the ball misses everyone in the air, then it needs to land in a fair contest location, that location might be amongst players or it could be over the top beyond the 15m line

 

[L'irlandais]

If the ball is thrown beyond 15m both back lines can contest the ball.

[LAWS]19.15 (c) Long throw in. If the player who is throwing in throws the ball beyond the 15-metre line, a player of the same team may run forward to take the ball as soon as the ball leaves the hands of the player throwing in. If that player does so, opponents may also run forward. If a player runs forward to take a long throw in, and the ball is not thrown beyond the 15-metre line, this player is offside and must be penalised.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the offending team’s offside line, opposite the place of infringement, at least 15 metres from the touchline[/LAWS]

 

[Blackberry]

Great thread...and I'm a convert.

Until now, I've been a materiality man, if the defending team didn't jump it meant the ball didn't have to go straight. However.....many of the sanctions in rugby are not for foul play, but for not displaying the skills, the specific skills, the game asks of us. The best example which compels me is the one already mentioned of knock ons being sanctioned no matter how far away from play they are.

Therefore if a hooker is not confident enough that his throw will not accidentally edge its way over the opposition, he has a get out clause whenever he is facing not jumping defending teams.

So no, I believe he must display the throwing in skills required by the laws of the game or face the sanction.

 

[didds]

Halleleujah. ;-)

My work here is done. Almost ;-)

didds

 

[Taff]

If the ball is thrown beyond 15m both back lines can contest the ball.

In theory yes, but I think VM75s point is that if the ball is thrown not straight and beyond the 15m line, then one side has further to run to contest.

 

[didds]

that's all a bit schroedingers cat innit?

If no contest. then the throw to a catcher at the back can be skew - but if it misses the back jumper then what was an OK throw now isn't because its over the back and its not straight?

So theer is a oment in time when it is both straight and not straight...

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

that's all a bit schroedingers cat innit?

If no contest. then the throw to a catcher at the back can be skew - but if it misses the back jumper then what was an OK throw now isn't because its over the back and its not straight?

So theer is a oment in time when it is both straight and not straight...

didds

It all seems a bit picky choosy to me.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Scrums are notably different as you can win the ball without striking, i.e. you can shove your opponents off the ball, so no - I expect feeds to go along the centre line

And IMO, that is the key reason why scrums have been turned from a way to "restart play quickly, safely and fairly, after a minor infringement or a stoppage" into a long, drawn out, sometimes dangerous, testosterone-fuelled pissing contest which is unfairly weighted in favour of the team that didn't infringe, and which seems to be primarily used to generate penalty kicks.

This is the reason why I am in favour of applying materiality at the throw in. If the opposing hooker wants to keep the scrum half feeding the ball straight, all he has to do is strike at the feed. Shock horror, he might even get a strike against the head, an art that has been all but lost from the game.

 

[didds]

Just to check Ian -

* you are in favour of the materiality view at lineouts ie no contest = leeway in the throw's straightness
* you do not believe in the "over the 15m it now has to be straight" view

?

You seemed to be in agreement with me on the Schroedinger's Throw point?

didds

 

[VM75]

In theory yes, but I think VM75s point is that if the ball is thrown not straight and beyond the 15m line, then one side has further to run to contest.

Im saying that a thrown beyond the 15m needs to land straight - to allow for a fair contest between either line out participants or 9's or 10-15 , albeit one team might have advanced warning through a signal/call of some kind.

 

[DocY]

It all seems unnecessarily complicated.

(I won't try to do a flow chart again as that didn't work well)

The throw has to be straight, unless the opposition don't jump, but if they jump in the wrong place it doesn't have to be straight, and if neither team catches it and it goes all the way over the top it has to be straight no matter who jumps. Does it have to be straight if neither team jump?

I think it's a lot simpler to say it simply has to be straight, maybe with slight crookedness at the referee's discretion.

 

[didds]

I think it's a lot simpler to say it simply has to be straight, maybe with slight crookedness at the referee's discretion.

You radical DocY

;-)

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

Just to check Ian -

* you are in favour of the materiality view at lineouts ie no contest = leeway in the throw's straightness

Yes. If the opponents cant be bothered competing for the ball, why should they get possession handed to them? Its like PKing a tackled player for not releasing the ball immediately, when no opposition players are trying to take it off him.

* you do not believe in the "over the 15m it now has to be straight" view

Correct, I do not.

If you are going to pull up every not straight lineout throw that goes beyond the 15m for not being straight, then you will be pulling up just about all of them.

You seemed to be in agreement with me on the Schroedinger's Throw point?

Yes.

 

[Taff]

If no contest. then the throw to a catcher at the back can be skew - but if it misses the back jumper then what was an OK throw now isn't because its over the back and its not straight?

Because one makes a difference and the other one doesn't.

Im saying that a thrown beyond the 15m needs to land straight - to allow for a fair contest between either line out participants or 9's or 10-15 , albeit one team might have advanced warning through a signal/call of some kind.

Hey; I'm agreeing with you mate. :biggrin:

 

[winchesterref]

I'm very interested in how you decide if it's "straight enough".

 

[didds]

... whilst still not "taking the piss".



didds

 

[VM75]

It all seems unnecessarily complicated.


The throw has to be straight, unless the opposition don't jump, but if they jump in the wrong place it doesn't have to be straight, and if neither team catches it and it goes all the way over the top it has to be straight no matter who jumps. Does it have to be straight if neither team jump?

I think it's a lot simpler to say it simply has to be straight, maybe with slight crookedness at the referee's discretion.

DocY It's not complicated at all, refereeing is all about applying sensible materiality to a wide range of scenario's

Answering your queries

The throw has to be straight - correct, a fair contest for possession is the outcome required

Unless the opposition don't jump - correct, assuming only one team is high in the air then the opposition have decided not to contest possession of that throw

If they jump in the wrong place lifted nowhere close to where the ball arrives it doesn't have to be straight - correct, because a fair contest for possession wasn't going to ever occur

If neither team catches it and it goes all the way over the top it has to be straight no matter who jumps. Correct, as the fair contest will now be between players who started equal distance from it's landing location.

Does it have to be straight if neither team jump? Yes of course, as the fair contest will now be between players stood equal distance from it's landing location.

:shrug:

is this Useful ?