[Law] Penalty best position !

[crossref]

I guess the scenario that is the problem is

- red have PK in a kickable location, but you play advantage as they are attacking
- red attack and gain some ground
- blue commit a second PK offence, in a less kickable location, but now we are close to the tryline so you continue to play advantage as a try seem likely
- red drop the ball.

So now you are going to go back to the PK -- the first offence is best for three points, the second offence, closer to the tryline is a worse kick, but a better chance of a try..

It's not a scenario that will come up very often.

 

[rugbyslave]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaKH4bPI8s0

 

[crossref]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaKH4bPI8s0

(I love the way he refs in English, but all the conversation is in Afrikaans)

TBH I don't see anything much wrong with what he did. Technically I see pegleg's argument, that 'new advantage' technically might mean adv is over for the first offence, but in reality two PK offences were committed, why shouldn't the non-offending team get the choice.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

(I love the way he refs in English, but all the conversation is in Afrikaans)

TBH I don't see anything much wrong with what he did. Technically I see pegleg's argument, that 'new advantage' technically might mean adv is over for the first offence, but in reality two PK offences were committed, why shouldn't the non-offending team get the choice.

I have never had a captain ask me if he can go back for a previous penalty infringement after I have called "new advantage" for a subsequent infringement and I think it just potentially opens up a can of worms. Theoretically, you could get a string of four or five infringements that you keep rolling forward with calls of "new advantage" until ultimately no advantage materialises and the captain then has the option of which one he wants to take. The referee then has to try to recall exactly where they all took place and what they were for. Messy at best.

 

[Pegleg]

Simply this. If you call advantage over and then the player loses the ball do you go back to the first offence and give the penalty?


If not, why not?

That should answer it for you.

 

[crossref]

I have never had a captain ask me if he can go back for a previous penalty infringement after I have called "new advantage" for a subsequent infringement and I think it just potentially opens up a can of worms. Theoretically, you could get a string of four or five infringements that you keep rolling forward with calls of "new advantage" until ultimately no advantage materialises and the captain then has the option of which one he wants to take. The referee then has to try to recall exactly where they all took place and what they were for. Messy at best.

yes, but normally it's quite clear which is the 'best' infringement, and at the time of the second infringment you either stop immediately, and take the first infringement OR continue adv and then later go back to the second


I have had this once this season (was discussed here)
- blue had a scrum advantage, made few passes, are behind the gain line
- then red committed a PK offence (from which no adv possible). I gave the PK
- blue said wanted to go back for the original scrum - (PK was unkickable, scrums were uncontested and given clean possession they liked the territory/field position)

It would seem churlish to say that because of red's PK offence, they can't have the scrum to which, before it happened, they were entitled

In that instance I hadn't played any adv for the PK offence, but if I had would it make any difference?

 

[Staffs_Ref]

I have had this once this season (was discussed here)
- blue had a scrum advantage, made few passes, are behind the gain line
- then red committed a PK offence (from which no adv possible). I gave the PK
- blue said wanted to go back for the original scrum - (PK was unkickable, scrums were uncontested and given clean possession they liked the territory/field position)

It would seem churlish to say that because of red's PK offence, they can't have the scrum to which, before it happened, they were entitled

In that instance I hadn't played any adv for the PK offence, but if I had would it make any difference?

I suppose that really depends on the interpretation you place on a call of "new advantage". If I have read and understood their posts correctly, then I think Pegleg, Phil E and myself believe that a call of "new advantage" simultaneously equates to a call of "advantage over" for the previous infringement. In that case, as Pegleg indicated in an earlier post, you would never consider going back to the place of a previous infringement after you have called "advantage over".

 

[crossref]

I suppose that really depends on the interpretation you place on a call of "new advantage". If I have read and understood their posts correctly, then I think Pegleg, Phil E and myself believe that a call of "new advantage" simultaneously equates to a call of "advantage over" for the previous infringement. In that case, as Pegleg indicated in an earlier post, you would never consider going back to the place of a previous infringement after you have called "advantage over".

yes, but they were way behind the gain line, adv def was NOT over. The only sense in that it might be over is if I believe that the second offence was clearly more advantageous than the first. So we are back to where we started - awarding them the more advantageous offence. (which occasionally won't be the one they wanted)

 

[didds]

you would never consider going back to the place of a previous infringement after you have called "advantage over".

so if as a ref you don't actually say anything at the second Penalty infringement, and just keep your arm out - or indeed just keep saying "STILL playing advantage" - then that would leave you with options to offer eventually (assuming genuine advantage never accrued for either infringement)

???

didds

didds

 

[OB..]

I see no reason at all to assume that "new advantage " necessarily implies "advantage over" from the first offence.

Blue 7 is offside at a ruck, so you call "Advantage". The pass from the ruck to Red 10 is slow, so Blue 7 gets there in time to execute a high tackle. However Red 10 slips the ball to Red 12, who has space to run. Clearly advantage is not over from the offside call (unless you artificially declare that to be so), and you can therefore play advantage from the high tackle..

Realistically you are not going to get a series of such occurrences, because you will stop play to warn the captain and perhaps issue a card or two.

[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]8.5 More than one infringement
(a) [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]When there is more than one infringement by the same team:[/FONT]

• If advantage cannot be played or does not accrue to the second offence, the referee applies the appropriate sanction to the offence which is most advantageous to the non-offending team.
• If either sanction is for foul play the referee applies the appropriate sanction to the offence which is most advantageous to the non-offending team. The referee may also temporarily suspend, or order off, the offending player.

[/LAWS]
I see no reason why the decision should not be made by the captain rather than the referee.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

so if as a ref you don't actually say anything at the second Penalty infringement, and just keep your arm out - or indeed just keep saying "STILL playing advantage" - then that would leave you with options to offer eventually (assuming genuine advantage never accrued for either infringement)

???

didds

didds

Your options wouldn't really be open, because you would struggle to sell the fact that you were pulling them back to the site of an infringement when you had not even indicated that an infringement had taken place there. So, no, I don't see that working.

 

[Phil E]

I see no reason why the decision should not be made by the captain rather than the referee.

Because it's just one more way of slowing the game down. The opposite of what we are usually trying to achieve.


I can just imagine the conversation:

Which penalty would you like?
What's the choice?
Well there A for xxx, or there's B for yyy?
Where are the marks going to be?
A is over here, B is over there.
Where?
About on the 5 m by that dead cat.
Hmmmmm...thinks for a minute...maybe confers with his players or kicker....
If we have A can we do x, y, or z?
Yes
We'll have B then.

 

[didds]

so why doesn;t that happen already to any great detriment for the currently available options provision

(off the top of my head)

- offside from kick in open play (PK back, scrum forward)
- late challenge/obstruction on kicker (PLK from kick or ball aligting)
- 22 versus scrum
- lineout versus scrum


I don;t recognise the problem.

surely its a case of

- blast
- PK against red - ref :"blue skipper PK THERE (points ) or THERE (points)" (or similar with scrum etc)
- blue choose
- ref - "PK against red for <appropriate reason>"
- any cards
- proceed.

The only thing that takes any real time is potential cards with time off.

didds

 

[DocY]

so why doesn;t that happen already to any great detriment for the currently available options provision

(off the top of my head)

- offside from kick in open play (PK back, scrum forward)
- late challenge/obstruction on kicker (PLK from kick or ball aligting)
- 22 versus scrum
- lineout versus scrum

Familiarity and speed, I guess. In the above situations you don't specify the options, just "[PEEP] Red options!" - and in the case of the late charge you're pretty sure what they'll take.

If you're going to start offering different restarts in different places you'll need to use a lot more words. Not an argument against giving the team the option of where to have a penalty though.

 

[crossref]

it's very rare that there is any doubt.

in my mind just give them the sanction they obviously want, and in the rare case - as in the clip - where they actually (strangely) wanted the other one, they'll say so and you can just give them that (as in the clip)

 

[didds]

Familiarity and speed, I guess. In the above situations you don't specify the options, just "[PEEP] Red options!" - and in the case of the late charge you're pretty sure what they'll take.

If you're going to start offering different restarts in different places you'll need to use a lot more words. Not an argument against giving the team the option of where to have a penalty though.

*shrug*
so you would prefer a situation where the "new" options won't be given ever, rather than create a situation that in time becomes just as normal?

whatever.

didds

 

[DocY]

*shrug*
so you would prefer a situation where the "new" options won't be given ever, rather than create a situation that in time becomes just as normal?

whatever.

didds

Not necessarily, but I think it would be harder to normalise them. Now, you don't have to list the options, the players just (generally) know what they are.

"Penalty over there or scrum over there" just seems a lot more cumbersome to me, though I dare say I could get used to it.

I unequivocally think offering the choice of which penalty to award would be a good thing (else a canny player could, when the opposition are playing advantage, concede a penalty in a less desirable place), I'm just not yet convinced that this should be extended to scrums.

 

[crossref]

"Penalty over there or scrum over there" just seems a lot more cumbersome to me, though I dare say I could get used to it.
.

they almost always will want the PK.
award the PK

1 time in a 100 when they say 'can we have that other scrum instead?' give them the scrum instead.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

(a) Players may not always agree with exactly when I, as the referee, call "advantage over", but I am not going to get into a discussion with them about it, they will just have to accept my judgement that an advantage has been gained.

(b) If I see second and / or subsequent infringements whilst I am playing advantage to the same team I will make a similar judgement as to whether that offers a more advantageous situation to them. If I believe it does then I will call "new advantage" and in so doing I deem the previous advantage to be over. As with (a), they may not always agree, but I am not going to get into a discussion over it.

 

[crossref]

(a) Players may not always agree with exactly when I, as the referee, call "advantage over", but I am not going to get into a discussion with them about it, they will just have to accept my judgement that an advantage has been gained.

(b) If I see second and / or subsequent infringements whilst I am playing advantage to the same team I will make a similar judgement as to whether that offers a more advantageous situation to them. If I believe it does then I will call "new advantage" and in so doing I deem the previous advantage to be over. As with (a), they may not always agree, but I am not going to get into a discussion over it.

- when the second offence occurs, let's say no adv is possible and you blow immediately.

- you are then in a position where you could give either offence - your choice. Presumably you give the most advatageous.

- the ball is dead, would you object to the non-offending team asking please could they have the other one.