I LEARNED a new word last week - materiality. It came courtesy of one of Scotland's top refereeing supervisors, who was spying on the official with the whistle in the RBS Premiership match which I was reporting on.
He (the supervisor) decided to watch the action from the seat next to the press benches: on the basis that: "Well, you guys see everything from here". It was significant, I felt, that in a pulsating match which was yet another great advertisement for the Premiership, by half time he had taken more notes than the entire press corps.
Not that the wee man with the whistle had a bad game - by current Scottish standards, he did rather well. However, my introduction to "materiality" came mid-way through the first half when the home team's flying winger had his jersey pulled twice, and suffered some not-so-subtle interference running from a visiting defender, which, in the combined view of the press corps, cost the home team a seeming certain try.
Not so, explained the supervisor. His reading was that neither the jersey-pulling (since the home winger was at it as well) nor the interference running materially affected events. He and the referee both believed the covering winger, who did indeed get to the ball first and clear it upfield would still have got their first, even without the jersey-pulling and interference-running, so - no need to award either the penalty or the penalty try (which the reporter from the local paper wanted) which might have accrued.
We later learned that "materiality" is the reason why crooked scrum feeds are still being allowed - the referees are deciding that, if the feeding team is perceived to be having the better of the scrum contest, then, even if their scrum-half feeds crookedly, it doesn't materially affect the outcome, they'd still have gained possession.
The counter view: "Well, if the side putting in's hooker had to strike, and the opposition went for an eight-man shove, that might materially affect the outcome, seemed to cut no ice in refereeland.
All of which I feel reinforces my long-held and voiced argument, that rugby has a serious problems with its Laws and their interpretation, given so-m uch of today's debate is centred around refereeing interpretations of the Laws and how the teams choose to "play the referee".
There is only one set of Laws, and surely John Jeffery and his IRB Refereeing Committee have a duty to make sure that ALL referees are singing from the same hymn sheet in interpreting and policing them.
And, while I'm going on about the Laws - please, please, please, please, please, can we have proper rucking back? The breakdown is a total shambles, and only by returning to the situation whereby the ball has to be played by a foot after a tackle, will we see the sort of quick, go-forward ball which this game needs.
It would be a really thicker than thick player who resorted to head-kicking or stamping in today's top-flight professional game, covered as it is, wall-to-wall by cameras. I accept the thugs in the play for fun game, who have always been there, will perhaps perceive the return of rucking as a licence to kick heads, but, with even minor league clubs now having games filmed, with proper, stringent refereeing, they too can be controlled.
No comments:
Post a Comment