Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3910111213141516 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 157

Thread: Query 2. Should We Consider Materiality?

      
  1. #121

    Referees in Wales
    Taff's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Llanelli District
    Grade
    WRU Level 2
    Join Date
    23 Aug 09
    Posts
    6,275
    Thanks (Received)
    24
    Likes (Received)
    187

    Default Re: Query 2. Should We Consider Materiality?

    Quote Originally Posted by winchesterref View Post
    I think that's the bit there is a big question over?
    Exactly. Define "Not too daft".

    I reckon that at a LO, the ball could go over the catchers right shoulder - possibly directly over his head, but certainly no more than that.

  2. #122
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    28 Feb 17
    Posts
    752
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    71

    Default Re: Query 2. Should We Consider Materiality?

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    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
    I think "MUST" is a perhaps too restrictive a word. I think they "choose" to apply it because it fits in with their natural preferences of how they see the game should be played.

    That's a chasm that will never be filled even if supported with a clear directive.

  3. #123

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    8,017
    Thanks (Received)
    37
    Likes (Received)
    545

    Default Re: Query 2. Should We Consider Materiality?

    Quote Originally Posted by Taff View Post
    Exactly. Define "Not too daft".

    I reckon that at a LO, the ball could go over the catchers right shoulder - possibly directly over his head, but certainly no more than that.
    surely that would be not straight by anybody's definition, throwing to a yeamate who is stood to the left of the LoT?

    didds

  4. #124

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    8,017
    Thanks (Received)
    37
    Likes (Received)
    545

    Default Re: Query 2. Should We Consider Materiality?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckieB View Post
    That's a chasm that will never be filled even if supported with a clear directive.
    Well, if the clear directive is that all throws in all circumstances should be landing in the lineout gap, then i can't see how anybody could not follow it whatever their personal thoughts?

    didds

  5. #125
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    28 Feb 17
    Posts
    752
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    71

    Default Re: Query 2. Should We Consider Materiality?

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    Well, if the clear directive is that all throws in all circumstances should be landing in the lineout gap, then i can't see how anybody could not follow it whatever their personal thoughts?

    didds
    People's natural preferences I meant.

    I value skills above keeping the ball in play so the thought of even considering a KO as a concept to be discussed under materiality is an anathema to me.

    A bit like those wo are advocates of absolute open flowing rugby and who don't appreciate the forward game because they've never played it. You'll never convince them otherwise.

  6. #126
    Player or Coach

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    07 Mar 17
    Posts
    250
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    46

    Default Re: Query 2. Should We Consider Materiality?

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    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
    Im not applying it merely because it can be, i'm applying it because one team aren't trying to contest/compete for possession & therefore why stop the game & have another restart , makes no sense.

    I see this as similar to the often seen examples of support players lying on the BC after he's been tackled [parking themselves over/ahead of the ball] , & [unless I'm wrong] referees allow it [despite the law illegality] IF the opponents don't try to contest a ruck.

    Yet they PK it as 'sealing off' if the opponents do actually try to contest/ruck. So in that area of the game materiality of 'not contesting' is already being applied routinely. Lineout throw 'not contesting' is merely mirroring that materiality mindset.

  7. #127

    Advises in England
    OB..'s Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Glos & District
    Grade
    Adviser (grass roots)
    Join Date
    07 Oct 04
    Posts
    21,515
    Thanks (Received)
    81
    Likes (Received)
    991

    Default Re: Query 2. Should We Consider Materiality?

    Quote Originally Posted by VM75 View Post
    Im not applying it merely because it can be, i'm applying it because one team aren't trying to contest/compete for possession & therefore why stop the game & have another restart , makes no sense
    The ball is entirely under the control of the thrower. I think it is better for the game if he is expected to throw it correctly. The opposition should be entitled to rely on the referee for that, rather than having to jump whether they want to or not, just in case a throw is crooked.
    He trudg’d along unknowing what he sought,
    And whistled as he went, for want of thought.
    The Referee by John Dryden

  8. #128

    Referees/Trains Referees in England
    Phil E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Staffordshire and Royal Navy
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    22 Jan 08
    Posts
    13,933
    Thanks (Received)
    77
    Likes (Received)
    714
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Query 2. Should We Consider Materiality?

    Quote Originally Posted by VM75 View Post
    Im not applying it merely because it can be, i'm applying it because one team aren't trying to contest/compete for possession & therefore why stop the game & have another restart , makes no sense.
    Are they not competing because there's no point unless you apply the law correctly?

    Follow my blog The Rugby Ref


  9. #129
    Player or Coach

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    07 Mar 17
    Posts
    250
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    46

    Default Re: Query 2. Should We Consider Materiality?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil E View Post
    Are they not competing because there's no point unless you apply the law correctly?
    I doubt it, the PMB gives them clear notice that contesting has a value and reward. Smart players soon work it out.

    there are loads of occasions that law non adherence is considered immaterial, for me it's in that bundle.

    If that's not you, then thats fine also.

  10. #130
    Player or Coach

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    07 Mar 17
    Posts
    250
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    46

    Default Re: Query 2. Should We Consider Materiality?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil E View Post
    Are they not competing because there's no point unless you apply the law correctly?
    Have you actually read this thread? competing encourages straighter throws !

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •