The new ERRA Course for Referees

[Phil E]

I am no longer an active referee educator, but I have been told that in the latest ERRA (English Rugby Referees Award) the phrases Materiality and Contextual Judgement have been removed from the course.

Good thing?
Bad thing?

 

[Decorily]

Not entirely sure what that means tbh....
But removing the words presumably doesn’t mean that the concept and principles no longer apply!!

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I'm more concerned the course is called ERRA!

 

[crossref]

Materiality is always a confusing concept .

Why do we apply materiality to the most important offences , but not apply it to trivial ones .. (knock ons are always penalised, material or not ). A better phrase or word would make it easier to explai

 

[beckett50]

I am no longer an active referee educator, but I have been told that in the latest ERRA (English Rugby Referees Award) the phrases Materiality and Contextual Judgement have been removed from the course.

Good thing?
Bad thing?

I would come down on the side that it is a good thing. We need the ERRA course to teach the Laws and Values of the game. The refers can then go out and learn how to apply these.

As their skill and judgement improves then they will learn what is and isn't materialistic. It takes an understanding of the game and what the players are trying to achieve to adequately apply this judgement. It is a skill we are always learning and this judgement will vary from game to game and (sometimes) minute by minute.

 

[Pinky]

I'm more concerned the course is called ERRA!

Mind you our society is called ERRS

 

[thepercy]

Mind you our society is called ERRS

Good thing you are not the Edinburgh Rugby Referees Association:scot:

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Good thing you are not the Edinburgh Rugby Referees Association:scot:

Association of Referees Societies in Edinburgh.......yes?....no...?

 

[Decorily]

Association of Referees Societies in Edinburgh.......yes?....no...?

Nice!

 

[Arabcheif]

Materiality is always a confusing concept .

Why do we apply materiality to the most important offences , but not apply it to trivial ones .. (knock ons are always penalised, material or not ). A better phrase or word would make it easier to explai

When would a knock on not be material? If a player drops the ball/it slips out of his hands, the offence is always material. As he or a team mate will can gather the ball. Hence you play knock on advantage to see what happens. Green knock and gain the ball back very much material. Blue gather the ball, play advantage until you bring it back or call advantage over.

Offside on the other side of the pitch when a short pop/pick and drive by forwards doesn't have a bearing on the pop or pick and drive.

 

[crossref]

When would a knock on not be material? If a player drops the ball/it slips out of his hands, the offence is always material. As he or a team mate will can gather the ball. Hence you play knock on advantage to see what happens. Green knock and gain the ball back very much material. Blue gather the ball, play advantage until you bring it back or call advantage over.

Offside on the other side of the pitch when a short pop/pick and drive by forwards doesn't have a bearing on the pop or pick and drive.

9 fumbles ball forward an inch picking it up

In younger age groups now in England the ref can judge that immaterial and play on.


Knock on could be made like accidental offside.. if no advantage is gained, play on

 

[Arabcheif]

9 fumbles ball forward an inch picking it up

In younger age groups now in England the ref can judge that immaterial and play on.


Knock on could be made like accidental offside.. if no advantage is gained, play on

There you go, it's material if spotted. Might not spot it and give benefit of the doubt. But a knock on is a knock on, if possession retained "peep - knock on"

Yeah at young age groups, where the onus is on kids running about having fun, we have the knock-play on "Law" too. But at old/adult age groups I'd expect the skill level to be high enough to pick up the ball, so I'd ping it if seen.

 

[crossref]

There you go, it's material if spotted. Might not spot it and give benefit of the doubt. But a knock on is a knock on, if possession retained "peep - knock on"

Yeah at young age groups, where the onus is on kids running about having fun, we have the knock-play on "Law" too. But at old/adult age groups I'd expect the skill level to be high enough to pick up the ball, so I'd ping it if seen.

I know what the Law is, and how it is reffed
I am suggesting a change in the Law , or custom, to introduce the concept of materiality for a knock on

In some young age groups it's not a case of turning a blind eye .. they have a different Law : that a knock on is only penalised if the team get an advantage from it

 

[OB..]

Long kick downfield. Full back fumbles it but regains possession from the bounce. No opponent anywhere near.

I do not see that as immaterial. The knock-on is an infringement. Retaining possession is an advantage, so I see no reason at all to let him get away with it.

 

[crossref]

It's a revolutionary idea, that is difficult to comprehend !

It will never happen

 

[Flish]

Long kick downfield. Full back fumbles it but regains possession from the bounce. No opponent anywhere near.

I do not see that as immaterial. The knock-on is an infringement. Retaining possession is an advantage, so I see no reason at all to let him get away with it.

In RFU Land;

- At U11 you have the option of Scrum to catchers team (weird variation to encourage kids to try and catch) or if doesn't disadvantage kickers team then option to play on
- At U12 - U14 If doesn't disadvantage kickers team then option to play on
- U15 > and Adult Rugby it's a knock on (although at some U15 girls standards I may call play on too)

With regards "Retaining possession is an advantage" that surely only applies if someone from the kickers team is in place to gain possessions? If not then no advantage exists, it's only a theoretical advantage - which isn't one? (I do get your point though, and this often falls to the expectations of the players and fans).

 

[OB..]

With regards "Retaining possession is an advantage" that surely only applies if someone from the kickers team is in place to gain possessions?

In my example I specified that the fumbler regained possession.
If a team mate in front of him plays the ball, that is offside.
If there is an opponent nearby who tries but fails to gather the ball, you clearly go back for the first infringement.

If the materiality of the knock-on depends on the nearness of an opponent, do we really want to put referees in the position of having to decide what "near enough" means? Why complicate the issue in order to allow a player to (maybe) get away with a mistake?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

When would a knock on not be material? If a player drops the ball/it slips out of his hands, the offence is always material. As he or a team mate will can gather the ball. Hence you play knock on advantage to see what happens. Green knock and gain the ball back very much material. Blue gather the ball, play advantage until you bring it back or call advantage over.

Offside on the other side of the pitch when a short pop/pick and drive by forwards doesn't have a bearing on the pop or pick and drive.

Blue kick the ball 70 mtrs down fied. Green 15 knocks on and regathers with the nearest Blue player 50 metres away.

Can you tell me what effect on Blue there was from the knock on?

Offside is an error in judgement of law. A knock on is a error in skills.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

There you go, it's material if spotted. Might not spot it and give benefit of the doubt. But a knock on is a knock on, if possession retained "peep - knock on"

Yeah at young age groups, where the onus is on kids running about having fun, we have the knock-play on "Law" too. But at old/adult age groups I'd expect the skill level to be high enough to pick up the ball, so I'd ping it if seen.

This is the bit that really makes little sense. Ping lack of skill but let cheating go as long as "it does not work". There is more of an argument for ALWAYS pinging cheating whilst allowing for skill failures.

 

[crossref]

.

Can you tell me what effect on Blue there was from the knock on?

.

In fact Blue are better off as they get that much closer while green fumbles

Arguably they don't really need to be given a scrum, greens fumble brought it's own reward for blue