Mistakes will be made; live with it, the alternative may be worse
View(s):The All Blacks beat Springboks, to win the Champions Trophy, clearly reinforcing that they were the best team in the world. The South African defense failed a number of times with players missing one-on-one tackles. Added to that the handling errors made South Africa lose a match where the lead changed at regular intervals.
I wonder whether what happened 20 minutes to for the final whistle with New Zealand leading 31 -27 could be termed funny. The referee Nigel Owens was informed that New Zealand No 16 Dan Coles was on the pitch but not on the team-sheet. A matter the referee conceded would have to be dealt with after the match. The All Blacks team manager claimed a typo in including hooker Keven Mealamut instead of Coles. It is interesting to find out how the spelling Mealamu could have been confused with Dane Coles. Springboks skipper Jean de Villiers was happy for play to continue. The skipper chuckled as he said may be points will be deducted from AB after the match.
While watching the live broadcast there were many comments from those around that there was a forward pass in the second of Habana Tries. For that matter every pass on a TV view may be forward with the ball travelling sideways and a player running forward in the process of collecting.I was asked by a veteran why Sri Lankan referees cannot let the game flow as Nigel Owens did overlooking some not so obvious infringements. I agree that this was a game to be remembered and Owens did well. I was tempted to answer the question with another: do we play the brand of rugby that we saw in the Champions Trophy match. I did not say so but replied that the referee let go of issues that were not material but were nevertheless infringements.
Materiality in refereeing is much complex than one would think of. Somebody may ask what difference does this make as the laws have a place for advantage which is when the referee decides that an infringement has taken place but has allowed the game to continue.
Materiality is when an infringement occurs that has no bearing or effect on play and the referee decides not to stop the game
It is not that the referee ignores the infringement but may manage by speaking to players at the next break down. Materiality is a management tool to keep the game flowing and you will not find reference to it in the Law Book but in other guidelines. If it were not applied, the result would be a less enjoyable experience with many stoppages, however, where its application must be subtle, tempered with experience and not abused. If Sri Lankans were to blow that way there needs a cultural shift from both referees as well as the rugby community to accept than to always bring a video clip to show a mistake without looking at the context. This happens even at junior games and where more than before they raise the hands to heaven to protest as in soccer.
The application of materiality lets a game flow and not ping every technical error seen. In the law book there are 45 infringements in the scrum law and an almost equal number in a line out. This means almost always there is something you can whistle for and the game will be mostly “stopped”.
When we reach the cream of the crop games the referee who has climbed the pathway finds the game more slippery as the base to end narrows down. The refereeing emphasis is more about match and people management and less law whereas at the lower levels you are applying law and empathy.
At the top notch game there tens of thousands have paid for the privilege of watching two sides play, and perhaps millions more enjoying the game on TV, avoiding unnecessary whistles through the effective management of immaterial offences becomes a very important art. This however is an art and it is not always that a “Picasso” is born.
Many would argue that the pressure on elite refs to whistle less in the name of materiality, when in fact they are not at all immaterial – they have just been prioritized way down the list of things the whistle will be blown for. That is an art that you acquire over time and a few grey hairs as there seems to be no defining of materiality.
At community rugby the referee cannot be introduced to the concept early, without anyone being able to tell him accurately when it should and should not be applied. One may argue that the need for materiality or tolerance should be more at the community or junior rugby and not at the elite level. Conversely while one may see many mistakes at junior games to what extent can one ignore same? A knock on can never be immaterial nor can we say the same about a forward pass at all levels including the top games. Some may say let it go and let the juniors enjoy. On the other hand will the top coaches want players who cannot catch pass or tackle as they progress to higher games?
If you let a non-material offence go unpunished, what future impact wills letting it go have. For example: if the blind side defending 
flanker is always slipping his bind and the attacking side goes open, is it worth a penalty. But a quiet word at next break may help.
But if he does it again and again and then from scrum in 22m the attacking move blind and he makes an early tackle the penalty has to be thrown. But if you haven’t previously told him, “seen the early break but wasn’t material so let it go he may wonder why. The coach and supporters may now scream and use a tangy word “inconsistent”.
I copy a quote I read “If we lose the concept of materiality then we would effectively be “working to rule” which will be normally seen as a form of industrial action. Context and relevance, or materiality if you prefer, are factors in almost all aspects of daily life, rugby is no different. If you want robot-cop to enforce the law then don’t employ human beings. Judgment is won by experience-and on the way mistakes will be made. Live with it, the alternative is worse.”
Vimal Perera is a former Rugby Referee, coach and Accredited Referees Evaluator IRB
comments powered by Disqus