Query 2. Should We Consider Materiality?

[OB..]

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

I was referring to the determination of some posters to use materiality and allow a crooked throw under some circumstances. I think it is much better to take the simple line of expecting all throws to be credible, otherwise confusion reigns.

 

[ChuckieB]

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

Those look to be are playing/coaching "innovations", although I perhaps might not like to refer to some of them as such!

I am focusing on the origination of the responses to deal with some of them, e.g. who introduced the concept of advocating materiality? With such ideas formally documented in presentations with slide materials, or at least this one is from what I see from some other postings in the thread, should we be believing it as truth? Or are we in danger of just mixing up some ideas we think have become convention when actually they have no foundation in the laws nor are they supported otherwise?

Our own fake news?

 

[didds]

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.

wadr, its about materiality, and the claim that materiality is used in other situations so why not a lineout throw with no contest..

There is no materiality shown for knock-ons when there is no contest, so clearly materiality is not 100% a requirement for anything. See OB's post.



didds

 

[OB..]

ChuckieB - Materiality (compared and contrasted with advantage) has been the topic of some presentations at our society meetings, and is thus endorsed by higher levels.

 

[ChuckieB]

ChuckieB - Materiality (compared and contrasted with advantage) has been the topic of some presentations at our society meetings, and is thus endorsed by higher levels.

Was there some sort of trigger that got in on the agenda or something that just sort of evolved? Someone must have thought there was a problem perhaps?

 

[OB..]

wadr, its about materiality, and the claim that materiality is used in other situations so why not a lineout throw with no contest..

There are two standard uses of materiality where there is a clear breach of the strict interpretation of the law:-
(1) kicker chaser offside - no penalty if he stops when called. Prior to 1992 it was legal to chase when offside provided you stopped 10m short. Materiality flowed naturally from this. It works because everyone knows what is happening, and makes sense because the chaser may not be sure if he is initially offside or not.
(2) Picking the ball out of a ruck or scrum. This obviously keep the game moving and protects the scrumhalf. For a while the criteria were unclear, but now seem to be well understood: the scrumhalf is expected to pull the ball clear as soon as he lifts it, so it is out once clear of the ruck/scrum.

The suggested use on a lineout throw is not universal, so will confuse players. I think we all want the lineout to remain a genuine contest, so the thrower should always expect to land the ball in the gap. What advantage to the game is there if we allow him to gamble on the opposition not contesting? Indeed what advantage is there to his own team since serious cases will be penalised anyway. The whole thing is too imprecise, and by the time the referee makes his decision, players cannot change their actions.

 

[Pegleg]

Was there some sort of trigger that got in on the agenda or something that just sort of evolved? Someone must have thought there was a problem perhaps?

The trigger is the same as other items that appear on agendas (eg the scrum, line out, ruck, maul etc) is the need to revisit points of law interpretation etc from time to time to remind and or update knowledge as laws etc are amended.

 

[ChuckieB]

The trigger is the same as other items that appear on agendas (eg the scrum, line out, ruck, maul etc) is the need to revisit points of law interpretation etc from time to time to remind and or update knowledge as laws etc are amended.

..


......am appreciating that the majority will have arisen from topical incidents or communications from above.

I am trying to get an idea whether there is a chance that other issues get raised at the local society level, issues that may not be on the mainstream agenda (perhaps they might)?

This issue of lineout materiality being one perhaps?

You get a few people are gathered in a room, issues get discussed, you go off at a slight tangent and a conclusion is drawn on something unrelated resulting in treatment of an unrelated issue in a certain way. The outcome then gets shared amongst others in an informal way, e.g. around players, coaches or a forum such as this. Before you know it you have a wider audience perhaps informally adopting something as convention and we ultimately lose sight of where it originated without it necessarily have been sense checked or endorsed?

Does the society structure make sure everybody stays "on message" so we avoid situations such as this, i.e. as OB points out, suggested use at the lineout is not universal.

Materiality seems, to a degree at least, to have been left open to, "You buy into the ethos or you don't. We'll leave it up to you?". However the boundaries as to what it actually applies to are then left quite blurred?

Such things hardly serve to help the new referee along the learning curve.

 

[DocY]

I can only speak for our meetings, but such points of discussion come up in one of three ways:

Something happened in a top flight game, where we usually have a clip, discuss it and come to an agreement (much like on here).

Some regular occurrence that isn't always well handled - usually reported by an assessor or coming down from the RFU. Not much discussion, more of an instruction of how it should be handled. These are usually either something that's clear in law, but often over looked, or a new tactic to be aware of.

"Any other points of law?" which usually covers something interesting that happened in a game one of us was doing, or something in a top flight game that nobody else saw.

In all cases, any agreement or instruction is circulated to all members in writing before the next Saturday.

I don't recall ever having an in depth session on materiality, but when there's a clip to show there'll often be be someone arguing that a particular infringement was immaterial. And it usually involves the far side winger and completely misses the point of the clip!

 

[Pegleg]

..


......am appreciating that the majority will have arisen from topical incidents or communications from above.

I am trying to get an idea whether there is a chance that other issues get raised at the local society level, issues that may not be on the mainstream agenda (perhaps they might)?

This issue of lineout materiality being one perhaps?

You get a few people are gathered in a room, issues get discussed, you go off at a slight tangent and a conclusion is drawn on something unrelated resulting in treatment of an unrelated issue in a certain way. The outcome then gets shared amongst others in an informal way, e.g. around players, coaches or a forum such as this. Before you know it you have a wider audience perhaps informally adopting something as convention and we ultimately lose sight of where it originated without it necessarily have been sense checked or endorsed?

Does the society structure make sure everybody stays "on message" so we avoid situations such as this, i.e. as OB points out, suggested use at the lineout is not universal.

Materiality seems, to a degree at least, to have been left open to, "You buy into the ethos or you don't. We'll leave it up to you?". However the boundaries as to what it actually applies to are then left quite blurred?

Such things hardly serve to help the new referee along the learning curve.

One of the points of Society meeting and regu;ar attendence at them is to provide a standard approach. So, at our society it is stressed that we need to adopt a standard policy so ides have a clear idea, from week to week, as to what the referee expects from the players.

Do all referees stay "on message"? Of coure not. However, the quality and frequency of appointments may diminish if you cause headaches. So by and large we do achieve a fair measure of consistancy.

 

[tim White]

Materiality =Does it really make any difference/ Did the naughty person gain any advantage/ Why should I stop the game?

 

[didds]

Materiality =Does it really make any difference/ Did the naughty person gain any advantage/ Why should I stop the game?

why do you stop the game when the full back knocks on a catch with the nearest opponent 40m away? Did the naughty/silly/uinskilled fullback gain any advantage? Does his kmock on and regather actually make any difference regarding the opposition's ability to challenge at that moment?

didds

didds

 

[VM75]

why do you stop the game when the full back knocks on a catch with the nearest opponent 40m away? Did the naughty/silly/uinskilled fullback gain any advantage? Does his kmock on and regather actually make any difference regarding the opposition's ability to challenge at that moment?

didds

Didds,

Are you saying that all materiality should be removed from the game [& more stoppages follow] , or are you advocating widening the instances where it is currently conventionally applied [as per your example] ?

or, maybe the current status quo is perfect ?

 

[Ian_Cook]

why do you stop the game when the full back knocks on a catch with the nearest opponent 40m away? Did the naughty/silly/uinskilled fullback gain any advantage? Does his kmock on and regather actually make any difference regarding the opposition's ability to challenge at that moment?

didds

didds

Perhaps because, like throwing and passing in a direction other than forward, catching the ball cleanly is a cornerstone skill of the game to be carried out by players who are in possession of the ball in general play, and are to be exhibited by every player on the field.

 

[Pegleg]

why do you stop the game when the full back knocks on a catch with the nearest opponent 40m away? Did the naughty/silly/uinskilled fullback gain any advantage? Does his kmock on and regather actually make any difference regarding the opposition's ability to challenge at that moment?

didds

didds

I have some sympathy with your view. However, the "rule" is no Material effect where it is a technicall (lack of skill) offence. So I follow the "rules". Personally I think material effect should apply to every offence EXCEPT foul play.

 

[Taff]

Materiality =Does it really make any difference/ Did the naughty person gain any advantage/ Why should I stop the game?

I bought this up at our monthly meeting tonight - the consensus was if the opposition don't contest "get on with the game - as long as it's not too daft".

 

[ChuckieB]

why do you stop the game when the full back knocks on a catch with the nearest opponent 40m away? Did the naughty/silly/uinskilled fullback gain any advantage? Does his kmock on and regather actually make any difference regarding the opposition's ability to challenge at that moment?

didds

didds

I think a number of people have misunderstood your challenge?

Do correct me if I m wrong?

 

[crossref]

Didds raises the question : why don't we apply materiality to a knock ons. There is no logical answer to this, we just don't.

 

[winchesterref]

I bought this up at our monthly meeting tonight - the consensus was if the opposition don't contest "get on with the game - as long as it's not too daft".

I think that's the bit there is a big question over?

 

[didds]

Didds,

Are you saying that all materiality should be removed from the game

No.

I am quertying the call that materiality CAN be applied at lineout throws, so should, as its used elsewhere

I have no issue with the general concept of materiality. I do find... amusing... the idea that it MUST be applied (in the eyes of some) just because it CAN be.



didds