Query 2. Should We Consider Materiality?

[Ian_Cook]

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

"straight enough" is straight enough so that the two lines of players both have a fair (not necessarily exactly equal) chance to contest for possession.

Try marking a 1" wide line at right angles to the touchline from 15m in from touch to, say 25m in from touch. Throw the ball 100 times beyond 15m and try to land the ball so that the bottom of the ball (where it first touches the ground) lands exactly on the 1" line. Any throw where the 1" line doesn't exactly bisect the ball when it lands is not straight, Report back on your line-out throwing success rate.

You can't expect line-out throws to be gun-barrel straight.

 

[winchesterref]

Yes Ian, I get that.

What I don't get is on the same lines as didds. Not straight but not taking the piss = ok? When is it too not straight?

 

[Taff]

... What I don't get is on the same lines as didds. Not straight but not taking the piss = ok? When is it too not straight?

You have seen Ian Cooks earlier sketch haven't you!

 

[winchesterref]

Yes. Still none the wiser

 

[Pinky]

Straight enough depends. Ian's diagrams were good indication of what a few degrees off line means. As to straight enough, that depends on a number of things - how good are the throwers, what's the weather like, whether the non-throwing team are jumping for the ball, whether the throw is sufficiently straight not to get the crowd (or the man and a dog) thinking the ref does not know what he is doing, etc.

 

[didds]

so its "straight enough" whether people jump or not?

I thought the entire premise of this is oif the oppo don;t jump (or jump in the wrong place) then it can be even less "straight enough" ?
But not so less "straight enough" to then be "taking the piss".

I think all WR is asking is when does an uncontested less than "straight enough" become "taking the piss" . And how is that universally and consistently enough applied?


Personally Im still amused by a non contested back jump that isn't that straight but now allowed that turns into a not straight because the ball goes right through the jumpers hands and lands past the 15m line, and thus closer to one set up backs than the other. Staright to not straight in a milli second. Makes oi larf!



didds

 

[OB..]

I don't really understand this determination to allow a crooked throw. By far the simplest solution is to judge if the throw would land in the gap. There is then no temptation for a team to try and steal an advantage.

Materiality is just an item in the referee's tool box. He is not compelled to use it in this situation, whereas calling on an offside winger to stop when chasing a kick is a standard use of it.

 

[tim White]

A lineout is a contested re-start; can you still reasonably contest it? Does the thrower always throw to his own team?

NOTE TO REFS: Set a wide enough gap so the ball can land in it. If they can't hit a wide gap then it might not be straight enough. Take the pressure off yourself and the thrower.

 

[VM75]

so its "straight enough" whether people jump or not?

I thought the entire premise of this is oif the oppo don;t jump (or jump in the wrong place) then it can be even less "straight enough" ?
But not so less "straight enough" to then be "taking the piss".

I think all WR is asking is when does an uncontested less than "straight enough" become "taking the piss" . And how is that universally and consistently enough applied?


Personally Im still amused by a non contested back jump that isn't that straight but now allowed that turns into a not straight because the ball goes right through the jumpers hands and lands past the 15m line, and thus closer to one set up backs than the other. Staright to not straight in a milli second. Makes oi larf!

didds

That's easy to answer -

The 'lifted player' isn't being contested against, yet despite this unpressurised opportunity to catch he still fails to catch the not 'material yet' unstraight throw, which now fly's past him and lands Cl&Obv not straight.

If he contacts/glances the ball he will either have;
a] knocked it on
b] knocked it back/level

The Thrower's skewed delivery [initially/temporarily licensed by the opponents decision not to contest] simply reverts/concludes as not straight, as the lifted players failure to catch cancels the opponents licensing.

In summary, the uncontested unstraight 'exemption' only applies if you contact the ball.

 

[VM75]

Materiality is just an item in the referee's tool box. He is not compelled to use it in this situation, whereas calling on an offside winger to stop when chasing a kick is a standard use of it.

Agree, not compelled, but once it becomes standard then the referee is compelled by convention.

Presumably someone invented that notion, that has since become standard, as did someone else with all the now accepted materiality judgements;

*offside, but not actively involved.
*not releasing the ball immediately, when no opposition players near
*1st arrivee not supporting bodyweight - when opposition decide not to contest the ruck
*9 putting hands in scrum/ruck
*ruck winners subsequently handling to facilitate ball exit
etc

 

[VM75]

A lineout is a contested re-start; can you still reasonably contest it? Does the thrower always throw to his own team?

NOTE TO REFS: Set a wide enough gap so the ball can land in it. If they can't hit a wide gap then it might not be straight enough. Take the pressure off yourself and the thrower.

But the gap is prescribed in 19.8.n as 1m , no more no less !

Maybe you're already selectively applying a materiality judgement :shrug:

 

[didds]

Agree, not compelled, but once it becomes standard then the referee is compelled by convention.

so why doesn't the convention cover knock-ons by a full back with the nearest opponent 40m away?

didds

 

[Rich_NL]

so why doesn't the convention cover knock-ons by a full back with the nearest opponent 40m away?

Perhaps if the opposing team isn't contesting and chasing the ball, but sitting on their tryline having a laugh and drinking beer, there's an argument you shouldn't bother?

Since this discussion is not about being unable to contest due to field position or sending the wrong player up in the lineout etc, but about *electing* not to.

 

[DocY]

Perhaps if the opposing team isn't contesting and chasing the ball, but sitting on their tryline having a laugh and drinking beer, there's an argument you shouldn't bother?

Since this discussion is not about being unable to contest due to field position or sending the wrong player up in the lineout etc, but about *electing* not to.

At what point are you electing not to compete? Not being bothered to chase the kick? Being too tired to chase the kick? Not chasing hard to conserve energy? Not chasing to maintain a defensive line on the slowest player (who may also be tired)? I'm not sure these are questions the referee should be trying to answer.

Likewise with the lineout. Not contesting the throw because they'd rather contest the maul? Not contesting because the reserve hooker has gone off injured and this is the thrower has never thrown in before today and is making a hash of it?

 

[ChuckieB]

To disapply the laws in such circumstances seems folly to me. The laws are the one constant that referees have.

A 1m gap is called for, so manage it to that.

If it can't be popped into that gap to "allow" for a contest, then it should be the players who have to adapt and not the referee.

If the wind was a factor, you wouldn't find players persisting in overreaching themselves to throw it long. They would quickly adapt.

The shorter it becomes the more contestable it is likely to end up, LO or resulting maul. Mauls from lineouts, while abhorrent to some, is a legitimate tactic and within the laws. Yes it has changed the face of the game in recent years.

If a ref makes the odd wrong judgment as to whether it was straight then that is a situation we have long been prepared to accept.

If a players don't have the skills to manage the longer throw then coaches should work on raising the skill levels. Play to your skillsets

Long term, if the laws are unworkable then change the laws. Until then don't water down their application. They are there to support you.

It's hardly rocket science.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I don't really understand this determination to allow a crooked throw

OB.. its not a determination so much as a judgement.

If both sides contest, I'm expecting that throw in to be straighter than I would if the non-throwing side decided not to contest

At what point are you electing not to compete?

When you decide that you are not going to put up a man to contest the throw, but instead, are going to remain in the ground and set to possibly (or possibly not) contest the maul.

* * * *

VM75, IIUC, you would allow a throw to be off the LoT if the opposition do not put up a jumper to contest the throw, but you reserve the right to reassess that throw were the jumper to miss the ball, or if the ball was overthrown, and it continues on to land well off the LoT on the thrower's. If so, then I agree with that philosophy.

* * * *

As far as squint feeding at the scrum goes, readers need to understand the end result of what I have proposed rather that focus on the feed itself.

If WR were to adopt a refereeing game management policy that said...

a. if the non-throwing hooker attempts to strike for the ball, and the feed was not straight then the SH should be FK/PK
b. if the non-throwing hooker chooses not to strike for the ball, and the feed was not straight then play on.

...then a couple of things could happen

From a hooker's perspective, knowing that the referee will FK/PK a crooked feed if I strike, I am going to strike more often (gets my team a cheap penalty).
From a scrum half's perspective, knowing that the hooker might strike for the ball, I will feed the ball straight more often.

The whole thing should be self correcting.

Also, a scrum half can usually tell if the opposing hooker is going to strike, because he can see the hooker's foot positioning, so I could even see a tactic develop where an opposing hooker could look like he's going to strike but at the last moment puts his feed back as the SH feeds in order to fool the SH into throwing straight so that his scrum has a better chance to shove the opposing scrum off the ball.

I believe such a game management policy is worth a trial.

 

[VM75]

VM75,
IIUC, you would allow a throw to be off the LoT if the opposition do not put up a jumper to contest the throw, Correct.

but you reserve the right to reassess that throw were the jumper to miss the ball, or if the ball was overthrown, and it continues on to land well off the LoT on the thrower's. Correct, I reassess the materiality.

If so, then I agree with that philosophy.

​Thanks.

 

[ChuckieB]

........where do such concepts originate from? At the world, union or local level?

 

[VM75]

so why doesn't the convention cover knock-ons by a full back with the nearest opponent 40m away?

didds

Who knows didds, the game is so different from that of 25 years ago, so one day it might ! [ps.. I'm not advocating such , just saying ]

 

[VM75]

........where do such concepts originate from? At the world, union or local level?

Good question.

Who invented;
Lifting to receive a kick off?
Saddle rolling?
scrum half putting his hands in the scrum to remove the ball?
Squeezing the BC to the back of the maul? [now outlawed]
one knee down = a bonafide tackle?
the uncontested ruck? [Chiefs!]
squeezeball?
tackling through the throat?!
etc