Query 2. Should We Consider Materiality?

Taff

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/wales.png
#1
19.6 How the throw-in is taken/
The player taking the throw-in must stand at the correct place. The player must not step into the field of play when the ball is thrown. The ball must be thrown straight, so that it travels at least 5 metres along the line of touch before it first touches the ground or touches or is touched by a player.

A query came up during my game yesterday, so to keep it simple it's a straight question:

At a LO if the ball is thrown in slightly squiff (say directly over one of the rows instead of straight down the LoT) but the opposition didn't compete, should we be blowing for a LO / Scrum option or play on?

I suppose the real question is, should we take "materiality" into account or not? :chin:
 
Last edited:

Pegleg

Rugby Club Member
#2
Yes material effect should be considered. But, ask: "why did they not contest?" Was it because you'd missed / ignored (not saying you did mind) 15 crooked feeds already and they knew it was no point in jumping? That too would be material to the outcome.
 

SimonSmith

, Referees in America, Rank Bajin!
#3
If the ball is going down the shoulders of the opposition, why would I compete for it?

Be careful of cause and effect
 

Taff

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/wales.png
#4
If the ball is going down the shoulders of the opposition, why would I compete for it?
Depends on whether it was the inside or outside shoulder surely.

You have a chance with an inside shoulder - and no chance with an outside shoulder.
 

OB..

, Advises in England
#5
If you allow a team to do it, then their opponents will be surprised if they are not allowed to. Pointing out that one defending team did not contest and the other did is not something players will be used to. Best not to go there.
 

beckett50

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#6
Yes you should consider materiality. However, one should also bear in mind that the throw should be (sort of) legal and credible.

If the opportunity choose not to contest and the throw is over the (inside) shoulders of the throwing-in team then, IMO, let it go.
 

Taff

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/wales.png
#7
Yes you should consider materiality. However, one should also bear in mind that the throw should be (sort of) legal and credible. If the [opposition] choose not to contest and the throw is over the (inside) shoulders of the throwing-in team then, IMO, let it go.
I'm glad you said it, because that's what I did- which ties in with how other coaches and Refs have told me they expect it to be. I was just looking for reassurance. :biggrin:

Yes material effect should be considered. But, ask: "why did they not contest?" Was it because you'd missed / ignored (not saying you did mind) 15 crooked feeds already and they knew it was no point in jumping? That too would be material to the outcome.
Fair point. To be clear, most of yesterdays throws were down the middle and most were contested; I would guess that about 2-3 from each side were marginally "squiffy" and over their team mates inside shoulder, but not so "squiffy" that the opposition couldn't have won it if they tried. If the opposition had jumped for the ball, with the squiffy ones I would probably have given them the options, but where they made no attempt to jump at all, I wasn't concerned about the ball being about a foot off the LoT.

If you allow a team to do it, then their opponents will be surprised if they are not allowed to. Pointing out that one defending team did not contest and the other did is not something players will be used to. Best not to go there.
It's a good point; but I guess both teams benefited roughly equally.
 

VM75

Player or Coach
#8
19.6 How the throw-in is taken/
The player taking the throw-in must stand at the correct place. The player must not step into the field of play when the ball is thrown. The ball must be thrown straight, so that it travels at least 5 metres along the line of touch before it first touches the ground or touches or is touched by a player.

A query came up during my game yesterday, so to keep it simple it's a straight question:

At a LO if the ball is thrown in slightly squiff (say directly over one of the rows instead of straight down the LoT) but the opposition didn't compete, should we be blowing for a LO / Scrum option or play on?

I suppose the real question is, should we take "materiality" into account or not? :chin:
A Lineout restarts the game when the ball has left the playing area, and therefore it is supposed to be 'a contest' to gain possession. Accordingly a fair/straight throw gives equal chance of catching it at the point where it lands in the lineout [which might be up in the sky or down on the ground.


Taff, I referee in the following way every week;
During my briefing I tell both teams that if one team decide not to go up & contest for possession then their opponents catcher can catch it wherever it arrives, because if the grounded team have conceded the contest then i'm no longer interested in penalising an unstraight throw.

if the throw goes over the jumper/lifted player then it needs to land straight for a fair contest to happen between any non jumping participant or over the 15m throws. i tell them - if you want a not straight throw awarded to you , then be up there competing for possession.

If & when it happens I shout "no contest, play on", or if it's not straight when there is a contest a say "not straight - contested possession" even the supporters soon get the idea!

In my mind it's consistent with the principals being applied to 'uncontested rucks or mauls' currently.

During the briefing the players are often nodding to indicate they agree with the suggestion, coaches are always happy & agree it makes no sense to be stopping the game.

Assessors seem happy that provided everyone is on message pre-kick off then it makes for a less whistling game.

Call it my quirk if you wish, but i suspect its the way forward as long as one team stay rooted to the turf. In my head i invented this interpretation based on seeing 'uncontested' develop in other area's, because i haven't knowingly copied it from watching anyone.

I'm very Interested to hear the idea is being shared/copied across in wales, I wonder where they heard about it , or who started such thinking ?


 

Pegleg

Rugby Club Member
#9
As long as they are not contesting the line out for the right reason and not because the referee has ignored not straights earlier in the game.

Nodding heads do not always mean agreement. It can be "Come on let's get on with the game".
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#10
Age grade rugby u15 and uncontested lineouts. Still required to develop skills to throw the ball in straight. It is not a get out to stack the odds additionally in your favour.

Hardly acceptable in the full regs game, in my view.
 

Ian_Cook

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
#11
During my briefing I tell both teams that if one team decide not to go up & contest for possession then their opponents catcher can catch it wherever it arrives, because if the grounded team have conceded the contest then i'm no longer interested in penalising an unstraight throw.

if the throw goes over the jumper/lifted player then it needs to land straight for a fair contest to happen between any non jumping participant or over the 15m throws. i tell them - if you want a not straight throw awarded to you , then be up there competing for possession.

If & when it happens I shout "no contest, play on", or if it's not straight when there is a contest a say "not straight - contested possession" even the supporters soon get the idea!

In my mind it's consistent with the principals being applied to 'uncontested rucks or mauls' currently.
I like this way of thinking. Good management IMO

Slightly off topic, I wonder if we should not apply the same thinking to the scrum.

If the hooker of the non-throwing in scrum puts his feet back ready to push rather than more forward in a position where he is ready to hook, then he clearly has no intention to contest the feed, so a squint feed could be seen as immaterial.

The simple management method for the referee could be..

► if the opposing hooker strikes for the ball, and the feed is crooked, then FK/PK the crooked feed
► if the opposing hooker does not strike for the ball, and the feed is squint then play on.


************ I'll get my coat
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#12
I'd be reluctant to let crooked throws go just because the opposition didn't contest as a general rule.

Sure, if a throw is slightly squint and there was no contest you might give the thrower the benefit of the doubt, but doing so regularly gives an opportunity for the crowd and coaches to get on your back, particularly for very crooked throws. And one-eyed supporters will only see the opposition make such throws.

As a general rule, what I am looking for is a contestable throw. If the opposition could feasibly win the ball then I'd usually say it's okay.
 

didds

, Resident Club Coach
#13
Why is it so difficult to just impose the same strictures at a lineout whether the opposition jump or not? Otherwise when the oppo don;t jump why not just throw it straight to the receiver and do away with the jump and catch?

Frankly if a team with no contest in the air and thus under no pressure cannot get a throw straight, then they don't deserve any leeway. Taking an approach that a team has to jump in order to "deserve" a not straight is deciding unilaterally that a perfectly legitimate defensive option has been all but removed.


didds
 

didds

, Resident Club Coach
#14
Just thought... when is a contest not a contest?

If the defending team has an unlifted jumper that jumps - is that a contest? If not - why not? He has jumped, he has tried to catch the ball in the air - albeit manifestly failing.

If the jumper/pod happens in the middle but the throw is squint to the front - well that wasn't material either - so do you let that go? Or the jump/pod was at the front but its a long throw with a high trajectory to a lifdted cathcr at the back - well that's not material either, that "contest" was no such thing?

didds
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#15

During the briefing the players are often nodding to indicate they agree with the suggestion, coaches are always happy & agree it makes no sense to be stopping the game.
All the players nod during my PMBs, it doesn't mean they'll not complain the first time the very situation I was talking about arises!
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Club Member
#16
Why is it so difficult to just impose the same strictures at a lineout whether the opposition jump or not?
That would be easier, if anything. The reason you might favour not blowing up a marginal call when there's no contest is for continuity. See also: scrum feeds.

Frankly if a team with no contest in the air and thus under no pressure cannot get a throw straight, then they don't deserve any leeway.
The throwing happens before the contest, the pressure is the same.

Taking an approach that a team has to jump in order to "deserve" a not straight is deciding unilaterally that a perfectly legitimate defensive option has been all but removed.
What option - not jumping and banking on a skewed throw?
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#17
What option - not jumping and banking on a skewed throw?
Not jumping and preparing to defend a maul - and it's usually pretty obvious to see what the defending team are going to do, so much so that you could easily 'make sure' the throw goes to your side.
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Club Member
#18
Then I'm afraid I don't understand - what unfair advantage are the attackers getting throwing slightly skew if the defence are focussing on defending the maul rather than contesting the lineout catch? In what way have the defenders had their option to do so "all but removed"?
 

Taff

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/wales.png
#19
... Frankly if a team with no contest in the air and thus under no pressure cannot get a throw straight, then they don't deserve any leeway. Taking an approach that a team has to jump in order to "deserve" a not straight is deciding unilaterally that a perfectly legitimate defensive option has been all but removed.
But given that neither side should be off the floor before the ball is thrown in, the thrower won't know if there will be a contest or not until the ball's gone.
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#20
Then I'm afraid I don't understand - what unfair advantage are the attackers getting throwing slightly skew if the defence are focussing on defending the maul rather than contesting the lineout catch? In what way have the defenders had their option to do so "all but removed"?
There's slightly skew (which I think most of us would probably let go) and making little effort to throw straight if you're confident the opposition aren't going to jump, which at least some of us would ping.

For those advocating the crooked throw being immaterial, if a team weren't contesting any lineouts for whatever reason, would you ping the opposition thrower for intentionally or repeatedly throwing not straight?
 
Last edited: