Query 2. Should We Consider Materiality?

[didds]

I get OB's point in post 134. However . . . . . .

If Red set up to defend against a maul (or for any other reason and don't compete for the ball) and the throw goes directly to Blue then I'd say play on, not material.

At the next Blue lineout let the thrower know that the next 'not straight' will get called.

so why not call the first one?

You've just told the opposition they can expect leniency on the next technical failure they do, in effect. Now you have to deliver.
You might not think that's what you've done of course...

Your call..

I'm with OB. I just don't see the issue with blowing not straight when its not straight.

 

[ChuckieB]

The laws are the constant here and are there to support fairness of treatment.

They're not a framework open for interpretation, something guided by one's view as to how they may prefer the game to be played.

For me not straight , unable to fairly compete is to be pinged. Same for both sides whatever their lineout tactics.

 

[Pegleg]

Surely the point is that, apart from Foul play, we apply material effect to offences (if it's not material kee the whistle in your pocket). That does not mean we let an offence go but we may chose to manage in a way that does not involve the whistle.

Now we may feel that a not straight is ALWAY MATERIAL and that is an understandable call. However they may be something in the circumstances that leads the referee to decide to manage. Is that not the principle behind Material Effect?


So in short, for me, I will connsider it and probably ping anyway.

 

[Balones]

I may be repeating myself but if the defending side clearly show that they are not going to compete AND allow the opposition to win the ball AND the ball goes slightly not straight, then some materiality can come into play and a 'play on' would be acceptable. I would however expect a management word to the thrower about making sure it travels straight at the next lineout.

 

[OB..]

Perhaps we should be trying to look for some examples of materiality that we can all (well, nearly all) agree on. It might give some clarity to the issue.

For me it is crucial that the thrower at a lineout is not under pressure from any other players, and has complete control of the ball. I am looking for examples during play where life is much less controllable. Any ideas?

 

[Pegleg]

I may be repeating myself but if the defending side clearly show that they are not going to compete AND allow the opposition to win the ball AND the ball goes slightly not straight, then some materiality can come into play and a 'play on' would be acceptable. I would however expect a management word to the thrower about making sure it travels straight at the next lineout.

I would always expect a word at any incidence of material effect being used. Otherwise it is just ignoring the offence.

 

[VM75]

so how far squiff would you permit in an unconetsted-in-the-air lineout?

didds

Didds,
I've just watched the line out's in the Pro 12 final, when i've got more time I'll provide exact example of what the kind of thing I subscribe to - It seems like Nigel Owen's 'materiality' assessment agrees with mine !

watch this space

 

[VM75]

Didds, sadly I can't find a You tube Clip to show you so i'll do my best to describe and give game time references [from watching it on catchUp on tv) if anyone can then find the game clips.

55:40 [Game clock on Tv]

Munster Lob it in, Catcher is lifted by own players directly up in the air, Catcher is directly above his teammates, and catches the ball directly above his head. He doesn't have to reach across into the gap as the ball is thrown straight to him. Scarlets decide not to 'go up' and contest for this possession.
The only thing straight about the throw is that it went straight to a lifted Muster catcher.

Referee Nigel Owens doesn't call 'not straight' - nor seemingly does the AR.
In my matches I would be shouting 'No contest, play on" for this very type of restart.

56:47
Scarlets lob it in, Both teams lift a catcher and both appear to do so by compressing the gap.
The ball is caught by Scarlets catcher immediately over his head, which suggests that the ball isn't straight thrown.
Munster [blue] are trying to contest but are disadvantaged by the ball being thrown favourably towards Red side of the line of Touch.
That said, the Blue lift isn't great and I doubt Blue would have caught it even if it were straight.

Nigel Owens allows play to continue, which I also would have done under the 'materiality' remit of Blues were never likely to win because of a noticeably poor lift.

I do accept that you'd be unlikely to see this pinged at pro level, but it still remains an example of 'materiality' to furnish this thread.

68:28
Muster lob in, Only Munster rise to catch, Catcher catches the not-straight throw directly over his head.
Once again Scarlets choose not to lift to compete - "No contest-play on" seems to be NO & his AR's materliatity judgement here

Hopefully this all makes sense, i hope is that someone might post the video of the events

ps.. I tried but, don't know how to post a 'still' ??

 

[DocY]

Do you have any examples of him actually pinging a not straight throw? We'd need such an example to draw any conclusions about why he's not pinging it - it does seem to be going the way of crooked scrum feeds at the elite level.

 

[SimonSmith]

I understand 1 and 3.

2 I think you would struggle to sell at our levels. If they went up - no matter how unlikely the win - they're entitled to straight.

Pros, though. Tch. Who'd copy them for refereeing?

 

[Phil E]

In my experience teams don't compete when they see the referee isn't going to ping it anyway, so why bother.
That IMO is an error from the referee.

 

[VM75]

In my experience teams don't compete when they see the referee isn't going to ping it anyway, so why bother.
That IMO is an error from the referee.

Ref's not pinging unstraight throws that are being contested, is an entirely different context. FWIW I agree that they should be reasonably straight whenever 'being contested' is happening.

I am genuinely interested in what you do if only one side goes up to catch whilst their opponents stay rooted to the ground AND the throw is unstraight?

Do you always whistle?, sometimes whistle? (& if so what degree of materiality parameters are you working with between the various degrees of unstraightness?) or mostly whistle?

& do you make allowances for blustery weather or skill sets of players before you blow?

 

[didds]

Didds, sadly I can't find a You tube Clip to show you so i'll do my best to describe and give game time references [from watching it on catchUp on tv) ...

I'm interested in what YOU would accept as squint, not what some some TV ref (WADR to you).

Unless you are saying you would accept a throw that is at least (from the description) half a meter out?

didds

didds

 

[VM75]

I'm interested in what YOU would accept as squint, not what some some TV ref (WADR to you).

Unless you are saying you would accept a throw that is at least (from the description) half a meter out?

didds

didds

Hi didds,
I covered your question in post#8

I'm not surprised to see elite ref's mirroring it, as I expect such evolution to become standard practice. Once it is then even the resistors might look back & wonder why it was any different.

 

[Phil E]

I am genuinely interested in what you do if only one side goes up to catch whilst their opponents stay rooted to the ground AND the throw is unstraight?

Blow the whistle. If its crooked, then its crooked.

How much crookedness you allow is an entirely different question.

 

[tim White]

The lineout is a 'contested restart'; Was the ball straight enough to be realistically contestable? If you allow significant not-straightness they will throw more and more to their own side until you do feel the need to stop them; Better to stop this early before the players from either team lose confidence in you.

 

[ChuckieB]

"The contests are balanced in such a way as to reward superior skill displayed in the preceding action. For example, a team forced to kick for touch because of its inability to maintain the play, is denied the throw-in to the lineout. Similarly, the team knocking the ball on or passing the ball forward is denied the throw-in at the subsequent scrum. The advantage then must always lie with the team throwing the ball in, although, here again, it is important that these areas of play can be fairly contested.[My bold]

It is the aim of the team in possession to maintain continuity by denying the opposition the ball and, by skilful means, to advance and score points. Failure to do this will mean the surrendering of possession to the opposition either as a result of shortcomings on the part of the team in possession or because of the quality of the opposition defence. Contest and continuity, profit and loss. As one team attempts to maintain continuity of possession, the opposing team strives to contest for possession. This provides the essential balance between continuity of play and continuity of possession. This balance of contestability and continuity applies to both set piece and general play."

Taken form WR's own details on contest and continuity within the principles of the game.

I chose to adopt the view, that if you can't contest for the ball fairly, that you chose not to shouldn't go against you. You will have to contest at some point. As the official, I will ping for a throw that I deem is not reasonably contestable.

In the same vain, if skills are to be valued as part of the contest, then a knock on not under pressure is always a knock on.

This is all supported formally within the laws so I am "good to go".

My course is looming so I'll see if it comes up.