PDA

View Full Version : player on ground



dave_clark
18-01-08, 21:01
green 10 kicks through, white 13 chases back and dives on the ball. he stays there for a few seconds doing nothing (i.e. not getting up, or releasing). green 14, chasing the kick and the first player onto the scene, dives on white 13 on the floor. ref (level 7, and having an outstanding game) penalises white saying that, although green 14 was off his feet, the first offence was white 13 not releasing. green kick the penalty to win 8-7, although the scoreline is not really relevant.

correct decision to penalise white? if not, what about if he kept hold for 5 seconds doing nothing? 10 seconds?

Simon Griffiths
18-01-08, 21:01
I'd have to agree. It sounds like he was just killing the ball. Within those few seconds he had every opportunity to actually do something with the ball, and for one reason or another, didn't.

dave_clark
18-01-08, 21:01
does killing the ball matter, if it doesn't stop an opposition player from getting it?

PaulDG
18-01-08, 21:01
I'd have penalised green.

13 hasn't committed an offence until he's challenged for the ball. (Had green tried to get the ball I would have penalised white.)

But he wasn't challenged, he was jumped on. Foul play. Penalty.

OB..
18-01-08, 21:01
Law 14.1 "The player must immediately do one of three things:

Get up with the ball, or
Pass the ball, or
Release the ball."

Note the word "immediately". What constitutes "immediately" is for the referee to judge, but it is clear the player is NOT entitled to wait on the ground until challenged.

In this case it seems to me that the first offence was by White, doing nothing.

Greg Collins
18-01-08, 22:01
what OB said, he had time to do something and comply with Law. He lay there. He gets what is coming.

SimonSmith
18-01-08, 22:01
Think the ref called that one right.

Deeps
19-01-08, 01:01
Think the ref called that one right.

I agree wholeheartedly. White 13 is on the floor and out of the game; he has killed all Green's attacking advantage, possibly cynically, and has committed the first offence. If close enough, it might even warrant a PT/YC. A word in Green's ear about coming off his feet would not go amiss however.

Paul DG, I commend the player's responsibilities to you in Law 14; the over riding principle being that the man on the floor must not make the ball unplayable whatever else he does.

PaulDG
19-01-08, 09:01
Paul DG, I commend the player's responsibilities to you in Law 14; the over riding principle being that the man on the floor must not make the ball unplayable whatever else he does.

And I completely disagree.

The man on the floor must not make the ball unplayable - yes.

But that doesn't give anyone the right to jump on him. Dangerous play (specifically banned play) overrides the killing the ball. Reverse the penalty.

If the man on his feet had stayed on his feet, I would agree with you about the guy on the deck. Depending on the tactical situation it could justify a PT.

But he didn't stay on his feet.

peperami
19-01-08, 10:01
green 10 kicks through, white 13 chases back and dives on the ball. he stays there for a few seconds doing nothing (i.e. not getting up, or releasing). green 14, chasing the kick and the first player onto the scene, dives on white 13 on the floor. ref (level 7, and having an outstanding game) penalises white saying that, although green 14 was off his feet, the first offence was white 13 not releasing. green kick the penalty to win 8-7, although the scoreline is not really relevant.

correct decision to penalise white? if not, what about if he kept hold for 5 seconds doing nothing? 10 seconds?

I'd have called white to do something with it, if he hasnt penalty the minute green arrives. Also shout green to stay on his feet.

In that situation when he went to floor, i'd still give him the penalty but explain he needs to stay on his feet.

Ben

OB..
19-01-08, 12:01
It is a judgement call as to whether the green player did something dangerous, worthy of reversing the penalty.

However it is clear that in law both players committed penalty offences, white first.

SimonSmith
19-01-08, 14:01
OB speaks the truth.

He has already cited the law, but I would envisage it thus. As long as he stays on the ground, attacker's options have been limited. If he complies and does something immediately, then the ball - or the player - becomes accessible to the attacker. They can take thye ball, or tackle the player if he gets to his feet.

Why wouldn'tyou penalize the player on the ground?

PaulDG
19-01-08, 19:01
Why wouldn'tyou penalize the player on the ground?

Because you can't dive on someone who's on the ground.

Attempt to play the ball and the penalty is yours.

Dive on the man on the ground and I'll reverse it.

Simon Thomas
19-01-08, 19:01
As this was a level 7 match I agree with OB - first offence was white not complying with Law 14.1, although green was silly to go to deck. I would have given exactly the same decision at this level.

At your of level 13 PaulDG I would have more sympathy for your argument, but not at level 7.

Correct decision by the referee.

dave_clark
19-01-08, 19:01
national colts plate round 3C, not a level 7 match (just with a level 7 referee). white player an U17, green an U18.

any difference to people's thoughts?

Simon Griffiths
19-01-08, 20:01
white player an U17, green an U18.
If they're both playing colts then that is irrelevent - I'll treat them both as colts players if they're deemed good enough. (I wouldn't know this as a referee anyway as I don't ask for everyone's age before the match...)

Anyway, it doesn't change my mind, although I will concede that if I considered green's actions to be dangerous I might consider a reversal, but just diving/falling on a player isn't (in my opinion) dangerous in itself.

cymrubach
19-01-08, 20:01
Dave, I guess it's judgement call in this type of match, even though green had gone to ground and did not immediately release the ball/get to his feet/place the ball, did it have a material effect on what happened next, was it because he didn't do any thing that caused white to dive on him, did white make any attempt to play the ball before diving on green or did he just flop on the player? I guess at this level if the answer was yes to the last question I would likely penalise white, but as I said earlier it comes down to a split second decision, goes back to old adage, did it look wrong, the old stable of the refs bible....:hap:

Deeps
19-01-08, 20:01
But that doesn't give anyone the right to jump on him. I agree.


Dangerous play (specifically banned play) overrides the killing the ball. Reverse the penalty.

You are quite right but if it's not dangerous, one must weigh up the impact of both offences on the game and deal with them according to the spirit and not necessarily the letter of the law.

Deeps
19-01-08, 20:01
national colts plate round 3C, not a level 7 match (just with a level 7 referee). white player an U17, green an U18.

any difference to people's thoughts?

Dave, I manage a Colts side comprising 16 to 19 year olds at a National 3 club. Unfortunately we were knocked out of the National Colts Plate during round 3C. We joined this competition to develop our players and to improve the quality of what we do; we are now reaping the benefits.

In Hampshire they are assigned level 7/8 referees for that is the level they play at. I expect them to know Law and to suffer the consequences of not doing so. On occasions, some referees have difficulty with Law 14 and if I ever hear the cry 'Let him up' it will cost the referee an ear bending and a pint at the next training meeting or I will tell on him.

SimonSmith
19-01-08, 22:01
Because you can't dive on someone who's on the ground.

Attempt to play the ball and the penalty is yours.

Dive on the man on the ground and I'll reverse it.


I'm not sure you're looking at this the same way I am.

The law doesn't stipulate that an attacking player must try to play the ball in order for a player on the ground to be penalized.
The law makes it quite clear that the player on the ground has obligations that he must meet. HE is the first penalty. If he gets up, he can be tackled; if he releases the ball it can be played. If he lies on the ground, he's killing the game.

The only way that that penalty gets reversed is on the grounds of dangerous play, and nothing in the original post suggested that.

Davet
20-01-08, 00:01
The operatove word in Law is "immediate".

First offence was holding on on the ground, the ref was correct to ping it. If the arriving player had stayed on his feet then the ref could have played advantage... but he dived on the player on the ground, committing the 2nd offence

The referee could no longer seek advantage, and had to go back to the 1st offence.

Only if the arriving player commirred an act of dangerous play would the penalty have been reversed - and that's not what it sounded like.

tim White
20-01-08, 09:01
Was the ball available to the arriving player? If it was there to be played why did he not grab it and go, if it was not available why did he flop onto the man on the floor instead of trying to get the ball from him-and get the penalty for killing the ball.
Not good play by either man. I would be loathe to penalise a player for not releasing if there was no attacker there to get the ball from him, once the player arrives I'll take a different view.

Davet
20-01-08, 12:01
I would be loathe to penalise a player for not releasing if there was no attacker there to get the ball from him,


Why?

the law is quite clear - "immediate". I guess the circumstances may dictate how long "immediate" is; but there is still no requirement for any opposition to be present. Game management would probably dictate a call from the ref, telling the player to act, but if nothing within a reasonable time why would you not penalise?

beckett50
20-01-08, 17:01
Whislt OB quoted the correct paragraph in Law relating to both these instances in play - and FWIW I am not concerned whether it is a L7 or a Colts match - the pre-amble to Law 14 makes the position absolotutely clear.

Paul DG it might help you to understand from where we are all coming:wink:

It states:



The game is to be played by players who are on their feet. A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down. Unplayable means that the ball is not immediately available to either team so that play may continue.


The player that fell down on the ball has not met any of these requirements. He has therefore committed the FIRST offence. Ergo advantage to the non-offending team. The attacking player failed to stay on his feet and so committed the second offence; so referee defaults to the 1st offence.

Can't really understand what your difficulty is with this.:chin: :D :wait:

tim White
20-01-08, 18:01
And where were the team of the non-ball carrier disadvantaged by the player on the floor? No materiality factor here is there? I can't really understand what everyone else's difficulty is with this, WAIT FOR AN OFFENCE TO OCCUR. I did, and it was the player diving on top of the man with the ball. :cool:

SimonSmith
20-01-08, 18:01
Tim - I disagree.
Hypothesize that the player on the ground is near the goal line. If he complies with law, then the attacking team has a range of options open to them.
If he stands up, he can be tackled into in-goal; if he makes the ball available, then they are that much closer to a score. What he is doing is material.

I agree that the diving on the man is a penalty; however, I think it is clearly the second offence, and if we blow for the first, then the second doesn't arise...

Simon Griffiths
20-01-08, 19:01
Surely falling on the ball and then not getting up is material for the sole reason that had he not got up, the other player would not have had the opportunity to dive/fall on him.

So, first offence, I still maintain that it sounds as thought the original player is deliberately killing the ball to prevent to other team being given the potential options SimonS alludes to.

Dixie
20-01-08, 22:01
Surely falling on the ball and then not getting up is material for the sole reason that had he not got up, the other player would not have had the opportunity to dive/fall on him.


Although I agree with your conclusion, this isn't the rationale. The player on the ground is not required to get up (sort of thing Mr Barnes might say), but to decide whether to do so or to pass or release. But I think you can fairly argue that the fact that he was illegally offending may well have prompted the chasing player to act injudiciously and illegally offend by falling on him.

If we then have to choose which illegality to ping, I find it hard to see why the second one, being caused by the first, is the worse.

Simon Griffiths
20-01-08, 23:01
Can I re-phrase from 'not getting up' to 'not doing something'... :o (Which is sort of what I was thinking - i.e. something that made it obvious that the advancing player could tackle him/pick up the ball etc as opposed to actively having to challenge the other player).

PaulDG
21-01-08, 07:01
Although I agree with your conclusion, this isn't the rationale. The player on the ground is not required to get up (sort of thing Mr Barnes might say), but to decide whether to do so or to pass or release. But I think you can fairly argue that the fact that he was illegally offending may well have prompted the chasing player to act injudiciously and illegally offend by falling on him.

If we then have to choose which illegality to ping, I find it hard to see why the second one, being caused by the first, is the worse.

It seems to me people are saying it's OK to shoe someone if they're killing the ball - is that right?

In both cases the first offence is not complying with the "man on the ground" requirements and "a bit of a shoeing" isn't always dangerous, is it?

Dixie
21-01-08, 11:01
It seems to me people are saying it's OK to shoe someone if they're killing the ball - is that right?

In both cases the first offence is not complying with the "man on the ground" requirements and "a bit of a shoeing" isn't always dangerous, is it? No - I think it's been said many times on this thread that Law 10 offences over-ride the initial offence in terms of severity and priority. Falling on the man on the ball is not a Law 10 offence.

Simon Griffiths
21-01-08, 13:01
Agree with Dixie, shoeing someone is dangerous play and rightly deserves a PK reversal, falling on someone is not... Although I suppose falling on someone leading with your elbow (wrestling style) would qualify you for a reversal... But, I've never seen that, nor had a player complain that it had happened to them.

Deeps
21-01-08, 13:01
Falling on the man on the ball is not a Law 10 offence.

Unless it is dangerous play of course.

In the context of Law 14, falling on the man on the ball pales into insignificance against the heinous crime of making the ball unavailable.

OB..
17-02-08, 13:02
I have just found this in the tackle ELV:
Law 15.1
(a) A tackled player must immediately either pass, place in any
direction , push or release the ball.
Exception - A tackled player must release the ball to opponents on
their feet who contest for the ball. A tackled player has no other
options in this situation.

tim White
18-02-08, 11:02
Falling on the player on the floor is unlikley to be accidental, and it gives the player already on the floor an excuse for not releasing. :rolleyes:

Dickie E
18-02-08, 12:02
I have just found this in the tackle ELV:
Law 15.1
(a) A tackled player must immediately either pass, place in any
direction , push or release the ball.
Exception - A tackled player must release the ball to opponents on
their feet who contest for the ball. A tackled player has no other
options in this situation.


OB, does it say anything about the tackled player needing to roll away? If not, maybe 'latching' as discussed on RFU forum could be clearly legal.

OB..
18-02-08, 13:02
ELV Law 15

(b) Any players who are on the ground for any reason must not play
the ball, prevent the ball being played by other players on their feet or
take part in play in any manner or form. This includes players who
tackled a ball carrier.
Penalty: Free Kick
(c) Any players who go to ground for any reason near the ball or
players involved in a tackle must move away
Penalty Free Kick

Jaycee
19-02-08, 10:02
Just read the whole of this discussion very interesting.
I will now throw my tuppence worth in.
The man on the deck has broken the law by not doing anything that is correct.
The man arriving has dived on the man on the deck and never tried to play the ball that is correct.
Materially the man on the deck has not effected the game as it is in open play and nobody near him. If nobody is trying to play the ball I would not penalise him.
Along comes the player on his feet and makes no attempt to play the ball and commits an offence by diving straight to ground, he now effects the game therefore he is the one to be penalised.
It can be argued the man on the deck provoked the man on his feet to dive on him by being there but I have to say if a player is that ignorant of the laws he should not be playing that level. He had the choice to go for the ball first and he chose not to.
As with most discussions it comes down to how you interpretate the laws wrt materiality.

OB..
19-02-08, 11:02
Jaycee - I think your argument founders if you compare the situation with a fullback who knocks-on and recovers when there are no attackers within 20 metres of him. All referees award the scrum.

If the arriving player just stood there would you now penalise the player on the ground?

In a sense he is affecting play - by preventing it from continuing. Why is he doing it? In order to give his team-mates time to arrive.

It might be appropriate to reverse the penalty, for example if the arriving player dives in a dangerous fashion. but I see no reason why a player should be entitled to ignore the laws. The act was deliberate.

Jaycee
19-02-08, 17:02
Jaycee - I think your argument founders if you compare the situation with a fullback who knocks-on and recovers when there are no attackers within 20 metres of him. All referees award the scrum.

But a knock on is never ignored as immaterial. If a player is offside and does not effect play he can be ignored usually, I would use that as a better example of materiality


If the arriving player just stood there would you now penalise the player on the ground?

No, the player on the ground is not effecting the game as nobody is trying to play the ball.


In a sense he is affecting play - by preventing it from continuing. Why is he doing it? In order to give his team-mates time to arrive.

It might be appropriate to reverse the penalty, for example if the arriving player dives in a dangerous fashion. but I see no reason why a player should be entitled to ignore the laws. The act was deliberate.

Yes deliberate but it does not make a difference to the game. What has changed by his being on the deck? The arriving player can still play the ball, if the player on the deck interferes or trys to prevent him playing the ball Id give the penalty to the attacker. He however in this situation did not try to play the ball, rather he has tried to make it totally unplayable so if a penalty is to be given I would penalize him before the defender who at least was legal when he dived in initially and so far has not prevented anybody from taking the ball.

I seem to vaguely remember Sacky doing something similar at Twickenham a couple of years ago. Under the English posts an opposition player on his own had the ball on the deck. Sackey stood and looked at him then dived over him and was penalised for diving instead of staying on his feet and trying to get the ball and the probable penalty.

Woolfie
19-02-08, 17:02
i agree with jaycee

OB..
19-02-08, 17:02
But a knock on is never ignored as immaterial.
My point is to ask why that is so. It is a more trivial offence (scrum instead of penalty), so why does materiality not apply? I agree it shouldn't so for me the penalty offence is the odd one out.


If a player is offside and does not effect play he can be ignored usually, I would use that as a better example of materiality
It is an unsatisfactory one. If you don't take action on offside offences (which may be just a quiet word later) then you are effectively encouraging the offender to continue.

I think the consequentials of ignoring an offence tend to get overlooked.


No, the player on the ground is not effecting the game as nobody is trying to play the ball.
It is certainly not positive play! And we agree it is illegal. If he knocked on you would give a scrum.

Why is he lying there is not to achieve some end? Perhaps he is hoping you will be reffing and the opponent will get penalised. I don't like manufactured penalties. If he is still lying there curled round the ball when the opponent arrives, he has made it much more difficult for him to deal with the situation, and easier for his team-mates to arrive. And he has done so illegally. The game is much better if you get the players to do what the law says.

This situation is one of the reason I am so suspicious of materiality. It is not in the laws, so is not properly defined, and does not even have guidelines, yet it is used to allow all sorts of illegalities in a somewhat illogical fashion.

Yes, a good referee knows when not to blow the whistle, but he also expects players to obey the laws.

Jaycee
19-02-08, 20:02
My point is to ask why that is so. It is a more trivial offence (scrum instead of penalty), so why does materiality not apply? I agree it shouldn't so for me the penalty offence is the odd one out.

I have no satisfactory answer to that one all I can say is that knock on for some reason is always material. will start asking higher authorities about that one, that could be a good idea to ignore minor knock ons.


It is an unsatisfactory one. If you don't take action on offside offences (which may be just a quiet word later) then you are effectively encouraging the offender to continue.

I think the consequentials of ignoring an offence tend to get overlooked.


It is certainly not positive play! And we agree it is illegal. If he knocked on you would give a scrum.



I have been practising materaility, sounding like a religious nutter now, since I started refereeing 15 years or so ago, long before it was popular and I have always found it cuts down the penalty count and does not increase players taking the micky as they seem to understand what is happening. I must admit though to be always mentioning to players when I get a chance how they got off with an offside and next time they might not be so lucky if it's near the action neaxt time I also use the standard 'stay onside' phrase near rucks and mauls that keeps them going back onside.




Why is he lying there is not to achieve some end? Perhaps he is hoping you will be reffing and the opponent will get penalised. I don't like manufactured penalties. If he is still lying there curled round the ball when the opponent arrives, he has made it much more difficult for him to deal with the situation, and easier for his team-mates to arrive. And he has done so illegally. The game is much better if you get the players to do what the law says.

This situation is one of the reason I am so suspicious of materiality. It is not in the laws, so is not properly defined, and does not even have guidelines, yet it is used to allow all sorts of illegalities in a somewhat illogical fashion.

Yes, a good referee knows when not to blow the whistle, but he also expects players to obey the laws.

The player is lying there to gain advantage I agree. If he does gain an advantage I'll penalise him. In the circumstances quoted I did not see an advantage as the attacking player did not try to play the ball. If he was inconvenienced by the defender when legally going for the ball I would immediatley shout advantage. Before the attacker arrived though I would have tried to shout roll away to encourage the defender to comply with law.
I agree materiality is not well defined. I simply ask myself if the other team have been effected by the offence and then decide, knock ons excepted.:)

OB..
20-02-08, 00:02
This evening's training session at our society meeting was taken by our RDO, so I took the opportunity to ask his opinion. He agreed with me that the player on the ground is not entitled to just lie there.

Law 14.1 The player must immediately do one of three things:

Get up with the ball, or
Pass the ball, or
Release the ball.
A player who passes or releases the ball must also get up or move away from it at once. Advantage is played only if it happens immediately.

Jaycee
20-02-08, 09:02
OB
I am good friends with a L7+1 referee who does the training sessions for new referees where he discusses the law etc so is quite upto date on these matters having to field such odd questions regularly. He gave the opposite answer to your RDO yesterday lunchtime when I spoke to him. I think for this situation where both players break the law it really is a judgement call as to what materially effects the game. I will still referee that situation as I have described it as and one international referee agreed with me by doing it a couple of years ago at Twickenham, if my memory is correct.
Either call is technically correct in law as there are 2 offenders it's just a question who has the biggest impact on the game IMO not who was first to commit the offence. That would appear to be our main point of difference.

OB..
20-02-08, 12:02
Jaycee - it is certainly a point of difference. If the first player did as he should, then there would be no opportunity for the second player to fall on him.

There is no doubt who committed the first offence, so unless the second offence is significantly more serious, I believe it is correct to penalise the first offence.

Your approach would allow a player to lie on the ground until the last minute, before getting up in such a way as to minimise the opponent's chance of getting the ball. I think he should instead get on with the game as prescribed by law.

I think we have now covered the different points of view pretty well, but I fear this is a case where materiality is causing trouble.

tim White
20-02-08, 13:02
I think the Knock-On law was intended to prevent playing the ball deliberately forwards, it somehow got applied to 'fumbles'. We could perhaps do away with this a fumbling delays control and is already putting the player at a disadvantage.

CURRENTLY a knock on is always material if the said player retains control of the ball. (Offence specified in law + retained posession = material disadvatage to opponents)

OB..
20-02-08, 14:02
Player fumbles the ball a metre or so forward, recovers it, and then kicks for touch. All before the opponents can get to him. How have they been disadvantaged? They actually had a better chance of getting to him because the kick was delayed.

Jaycee
20-02-08, 14:02
Player fumbles the ball a metre or so forward, recovers it, and then kicks for touch. All before the opponents can get to him. How have they been disadvantaged? They actually had a better chance of getting to him because the kick was delayed.

I thought you were against materiality OB. Where indeed is the disadvantage, you are getting the hang off this now. :)
Yes it's an inconsistency in the materiality view but it's something to feed up the chain of command and see if we can get new laws that actually help the game instead of the current new crop.

tim White
20-02-08, 15:02
He's infringed one of the specified laws of the game AND still has posession-surely that is material. If he was offside and had posession you'd ping him.

OR as I suggested above, we could probably all benefit from removing fumbles from the knock-on laws entirely because that was not it's original intention anyway

FlipFlop
20-02-08, 16:02
I've always been told:

It's material if it affects the passage/flight of the ball.

Hence knock-ons change the flight of the ball - material.

Guy on the ground, but not getting up etc. is not altering the movement of the ball. Therefore not material. Hence penalise arriving player who goes off his feet.

If arriving player stays on his feet and tries to play the ball, the player on the ground (unless they release) is infringing and changing the movement (or lack thereof) of the ball by his infringement - Material now so PK against him.

OB..
20-02-08, 18:02
Sorry, I'm afraid I did not make myself clear.

I think the fumbling full back should be penalised. I do not think materiality ought to be an excuse.

People try to justify penalising the knock-on on the grounds that it somehow disadvantages the oppsition, whereas the chap on the ground doesn't. I don't see it - hence my example, though I appear to have missed out a chunk of what I originally wrote.

OB..
20-02-08, 18:02
I've always been told:

It's material if it affects the passage/flight of the ball.

Hence knock-ons change the flight of the ball - material.

Guy on the ground, but not getting up etc. is not altering the movement of the ball. Therefore not material. Hence penalise arriving player who goes off his feet.

If arriving player stays on his feet and tries to play the ball, the player on the ground (unless they release) is infringing and changing the movement (or lack thereof) of the ball by his infringement - Material now so PK against him.
On a point of fact, the guy falling on a moving ball is very definitely changing its movement. Do you really want to distinguish falling on a stationary ball from falling on a moving one?

But in any case, I don't understand the rationale at all. Why is the flight/movement of the ball so special?

The guy on the ground is far more likely to be the cause of problems than the full back who knocks-on. He is breaking a law for which the sanction is a penalty kick. I see no benefit to the game in applying materiality in this case. Yet you want to excuse him and not the knock-on.

FlipFlop
20-02-08, 18:02
On a point of fact, the guy falling on a moving ball is very definitely changing its movement. Do you really want to distinguish falling on a stationary ball from falling on a moving one?

The guy falling on the ball does so legally, so who cares about him changing the motion of teh ball? Once he has possession of the ball, he's not changing the movement of it is he, especially if he just lies on the floor and does nothing? Unless he prevents a legal player playing it........

I only said that changing the motion of the ball is relevant in determining materiality of an offence. I think its a good rule of thumb which seems to cover a large number of scenarios.

OB..
20-02-08, 18:02
The guy falling on the ball does so legally, so who cares about him changing the motion of teh ball? Once he has possession of the ball, he's not changing the movement of it is he, especially if he just lies on the floor and does nothing?
He might very well change the motion of the ball to going forward if he slides with it. But in any case I think it is a poor criterion, not worth arguing over.

Rather more interesting is the desire to overlook a penalty offence but not a scrum offence. Moreover the knock-on is unintentional, whereas remaining on the ground is deliberate. I find those criteria more significant.

Davet
20-02-08, 19:02
Manage it "Play the ball!" Applies to both.

David J.
20-02-08, 20:02
I think the issue is there are some laws which we consider to be "conditions of the game" and materiality does not factor into those. Knock ons/throw forwards is one. Touch is another. Foul Play is (or should be) a third.

Personally, I'm coming to the conclusion that all laws should be considered "conditions of the game" and we should quietly bury the concept of materiality. It's too slippery a slope.

SimonSmith
20-02-08, 20:02
Personally, I'm coming to the conclusion that all laws should be considered "conditions of the game" and we should quietly bury the concept of materiality. It's too slippery a slope.

Here's my translation of what you just said: we should blow everything, regardless of circumstance.

As soon as you deviate from that rigid standard, you're applying judgment and materiality to a greater or lesser extent.

OB..
20-02-08, 20:02
Personally, I'm coming to the conclusion that all laws should be considered "conditions of the game" and we should quietly bury the concept of materiality. It's too slippery a slope.


Here's my translation of what you just said: we should blow everything, regardless of circumstance.

As soon as you deviate from that rigid standard, you're applying judgment and materiality to a greater or lesser extent.

I agree with both of you!

I think I have mentioned this before, but everybody agrees that a good referee knows when not to blow the whistle; however it has become very clear that formalising this as "materiality" is currently a mess. It is now an archetypal Humpty Dumpty word, meaning whatever the user wants.

That outcome is clear from the discussion on this thread.

David J.
20-02-08, 22:02
Here's my translation of what you just said: we should blow everything, regardless of circumstance.

As soon as you deviate from that rigid standard, you're applying judgment and materiality to a greater or lesser extent.

All I know is I see three results of applying materiality that I don't like:

1) No disincentive for players to always follow the law. I believe "materiality" increases the sloppiness of play. That defending winger at the line out, will always come up too early because we never call it. Why permit sloppy play?

2) No incentive to rule makers to present clear laws. The letter of the law is somewhat ridiculous, but instead of changing it, we're told to ignore it.

3) Confusion among players, fans, and referees about what's the heck materiality is and what it's not. I don't think that's fair to anyone or good for the game.

I'm not against applying judgement (what that ball knocked forwards or just downwards? that's a judgement call) but I think I'm against ignoring infringements because they don't affect the immediate game.

I'm not entirely convinced yet, but for the above points, it doesn't sit right with me.


Edit: I see OB's point. It'd be good to have a working definition of materiality before arguing about it I suppose.

SimonSmith
20-02-08, 22:02
True.
I'll start to think about what "materiality" would be defined as and see what I can come up with.

I see your three points, but I'm not sure that I agree with them, as you seem to be saying that sanctioning is the only way to handle things.
Example: the winger coming up too quickly at the line out. OK, the first time I may not penalize. However, I will manage the situation by letting him know I saw it and the next time I may act upon it.

I also don't agree that we're told to ignore laws because they're badly worded. Certainly I never got that memo!

Jaycee
21-02-08, 09:02
All good stuff lads.
Materiality is a work in progress. It is becoming more popular as people want more games where the ball is in play rather than set pieces or more acurately kicks at goal. It is not been completely defined yet, as OB has pointed out, a knock on by the full back when nobody is near him surely must be immaterial to the game, I agree with him though he his is actually trying to point out how poor materiality is by this annomally. Instead of saying materiality is therefore useless I say lets try and get the knock on defined a little better and progress materiality until we have a game where only offences that effect the game are blown. I see the argument of not penalising players encourages them to infringe this is where our management comes in, we tell them to get onside etc if they do it again penalise them but they probably won't as they know you are now watching them. I have found ignoring offences has not increased the players attempts to gain advantage by cheating and have been doing this for years. I would far rather this sympathetic approach that the current new laws which are trying to speed up the game and turn it into a simple game like league by taking away our ability to punish players with penalties when needed.
The top referees try their best to keep games flowing and I know one that practises on lower level games by trying to have a no penalty game by telling players to desist from their illegal actions before they effect the game, not sure how low a count he has got to but I am certain it is way below 10 and the games are better for the players and spectators.

Phil E
21-02-08, 18:02
deleted

PaulDG
25-02-08, 11:02
Anyone watch the Sarries v Quins last night?

At least 2 shouts from Spreaders of "Let Him Up!"

OB..
25-02-08, 12:02
Perhaps it is just as well he is retiring soon!

Davet
25-02-08, 14:02
Spreaders had an excellent game, and just because he isn't in tune with the bee in our collective bonnet that doesn't make it a good thing that he's retiring. He is one of the best managers of a game around and when he does hang his boots up it will be a pity.

Simon Thomas
25-02-08, 16:02
No doubt Spreaders adapted his management technique to account for the very wet underfoot conditions on the day.

What happens in an elite professional match bears little relevance to our level 5 and below matches.

As and when his full retirement will be a shame, especially for the U16s etc who get to experience his style on Sunday morning occasionally.

PaulDG
25-02-08, 16:02
Spreaders had an excellent game, and just because he isn't in tune with the bee in our collective bonnet that doesn't make it a good thing that he's retiring. He is one of the best managers of a game around and when he does hang his boots up it will be a pity.

I agree (and I'm a Sarries fan).

He did an excellent job in poor conditions.

But in the circumstances I just wish he'd shouted "play the ball" or somesuch instead of "let him up"...

OB..
25-02-08, 18:02
Spreaders had an excellent game, and just because he isn't in tune with the bee in our collective bonnet that doesn't make it a good thing that he's retiring. He is one of the best managers of a game around and when he does hang his boots up it will be a pity.
I agree - hence the exclamation mark to indicate tongue in cheek.

Given a choice of Spreaders with that idiosyncrasy or certain others I won't specify, I would definitely prefer Spreaders.

scrumhalf47
03-03-08, 17:03
May I recount a slightly risque anecdote? It made me laugh at the time.
We have a very senior ref in Hertfordshire who was confronted by just such a "do something don't just lie there" problem. After the game in the clubhouse the player approached the Ref ( I was talking with him at the time) and and said Sir, you pinged me out there for not doing something immediately--so what's immediately?" Senior Hertfordshire Ref says " I don't know but it's f**king quick!"

Deeps
03-03-08, 17:03
Good. I am happy to adopt that definition too, are we agreed?

Simon Thomas
05-03-08, 10:03
Sir, you pinged me out there for not doing something immediately--so what's immediately?" Senior Hertfordshire Ref says " I don't know but it's f**king quick!"

The answer I used recently to a post match question from a Colts coach after I had pinged his full back for just such a ball retention technique was "his definition and my definition of immediately seemed to differ by a factor of 10" - as a Maths master at a local school he got the message.

ian496
06-03-08, 10:03
Tecnically probably correct, but why do it? Always believe in "no harm, no foul" otherwise we are blowing all day. Green 14 showed a complete lack of common sense in diving to ground. Had he run up and contested for the ball, he would have got the penalty anyway. Need to instill responsibility in the players and green 14 compromised basic premise of safety. I would have pinged green 14 for not allowing the player up and explained that if he had stayed on his feet he would have won the penalty. Word in white's ear about getting on with it also.

OB..
06-03-08, 16:03
I would have pinged green 14 for not allowing the player up and explained that if he had stayed on his feet he would have won the penalty.
The actual offence is falling on the player on the ground. He does not have to let him up.

Deeps
06-03-08, 18:03
I would have pinged green 14 for not allowing the player up ....

Ian, unless you can demonstrate where this is laid down in Law, you should take yourself away to a quiet corner and write out Law 14 twenty times please.

chopper15
07-03-08, 12:03
As a matter of interest (to me, I suppose):

A grounded player has 3 options, get up/pass/release the ball. Should he reach fwd and 'place' the ball, can a team mate coming from behind pick it up? Or will it be deemed a fwd pass?

dave_clark
07-03-08, 12:03
no, as there is no pass. the ball is placed on the ground so, assuming the arriving player doesn't come in from an offside position, play on.

dave_clark
03-04-08, 14:04
and, lo and behold, i had exactly this same situation in my match on Satuday. I'd like to say that i remembered the advice from here, but no. penalty against black for diving on the man on the floor.

oops :o

still, they didn't question it (once i'd explained that if they stepped over and tried to take the ball i would have pinged green for holding on).

Davet
03-04-08, 14:04
penalty against black for diving on the man on the floor.

oops :o


If the opposition dived on the man on the floor then the penalty was a correct decision.

AndyKidd
03-04-08, 15:04
Dave C

I Agree with DaveT ... Arriving players must stay on their feet. Hence your initial instinct was the correct call.

dave_clark
03-04-08, 16:04
interesting - the concensus when first raised is that the first man should have been penalised for not doing anything...

ah well, if we can't decide at least the players can have no grounds for complaint :)

OB..
03-04-08, 17:04
The player who falls on the ball is required to act "immediately". This is a flexible concept. The usual problem is that an opponent falls on him before he can reasonably be expected to act.

Davet
03-04-08, 20:04
You didn't say the player on the floor did nothing, merely that the opposition dived on him.

dave_clark
03-04-08, 23:04
sorry, the player on the floor made no effort to get up.

like i said, oops.

Account Deleted
06-04-08, 21:04
Any chance of telling Wayne Barnes that you can't dive on top of a player on the ground?

dave_clark
06-04-08, 22:04
i'll have a word at the next central meeting :)

care to elaborate? i don't recall the incident from today's match.

Account Deleted
07-04-08, 01:04
Early on Cardiff player went down on the ball near his own posts and Toulouse player dived off his feet on top of him "winning" the scrum.

There again he let both sides go off their feet at just about every "ruck".

No complaints about the result. Men against boys!

Phil E
07-04-08, 11:04
There again he let both sides go off their feet at just about every "ruck".

This seems to be common at top level. See it in every match on S4C Club Rugby. The modern fashion seems to be for all arriving players to lie across the ruck, rather than standing across it.

Simon Thomas
07-04-08, 12:04
Hampshire Cup Final yesterday, Basingstoke (level 5 on wat down) v Havant (level 4) was well refereed by a Panel Ref (and an RRDO). Great example to the Society Refs watching and running as TJs for him, as he kept players on the their feet post tackle and at ruck (until contest was over).

On a similar thread (elsewhere)

Havant kick through into 22m, Basingstoke full back falls and starts to get up, shouts all round of 'Let him up' (I groan as Fourth Official). Havant winger arrives before full back is up very far, and just lies all over Basingstoke player. Ref blows for penalty to Basingstoke - well done.

Explanation of actual Law to excitable Havant replacements by myself, supported by Havant Head Coach, who calls his player a "d***head for not staying on his feet, where he would be king"

tim White
07-04-08, 21:04
[

Explanation of actual Law to excitable Havant replacements by myself, supported by Havant Head Coach, who calls his player a "d***head for not staying on his feet, where he would be king"[/QUOTE]


I had excluded this type of explanation from my own particular style, but now I see it has merit :Looser:

tim White
08-04-08, 10:04
I have come to the conclusion that the cry of "Let Him Up!" is an abreviation of the phrase "Let Him Up BEFORE YOU TACKLE HIM!" The last part often gets missed off and has never been learnt by many players coming through the system, some of these now play at international level, coach, admin, ref, etc. etc.:wait:

Dickie E
08-04-08, 14:04
as I've said before this seems to be an odd abberation from pommie-land. Never heard it myself either in person or on TV.