[Law] Advantage question

[Camquin]

Brumbies v Highlanders - TMO cannot see grounding.
Ref says to Brumbies captain
"It was held up, so you can go back for the penalty or take the scrum"

discuss?

 

[ChrisR]

Scrum only for me. Surely advantage has been gained if they get the ball into goal.

 

[Dickie E]

Scrum only for me. Surely advantage has been gained if they get the ball into goal.

Not how I would see it.

 

[damo]

Scrum only for me. Surely advantage has been gained if they get the ball into goal.

I see it the opposite way. It didn't look like there was advantage gained to me.

However, I would not let them take the 5m scrum because that would be giving them 2 bites at the cherry. You either get a try, or you have to go back for the original PK in my view.

I believe the law was changed so that where there are 2 PK offences one after the other the captain can choose which PK spot he wants, but I don't think that should apply where there is just the one PK, and then another restart.

 

[Pegleg]

I guess he is asking the captain if the captain considers the scrum to be advantage. I know others see that sort of thing as fair game. I'd have no problem wit ha ref considering it to be an advantage (depending on the particular situation). But for me it's the refs call an no one else's.

 

[DocY]

I guess he is asking the captain if the captain considers the scrum to be advantage.

^ This

FWIW, generally I have no problem with this. Might be because I do it myself.

 

[Pegleg]

I guess it depends on your consistency. What happens the time you don't ask(because you think it clearly is or is not over and the captain moans the opposite?

 

[DocY]

I guess it depends on your consistency. What happens the time you don't ask(because you think it clearly is or is not over and the captain moans the opposite?

It's not come up, but whether this is to do with how I handle it (blow and run to the mark) or because I generally make the right call, I don't know.

I agree, it could open a can of worms, but in practice, I think that's no more likely than the similar can of worms you'd open if (taking the OP's example) you'd called the scrum rather than penalty (assuming they wanted the other one).

I should stress that this doesn't come up very often - not even once a game - and I'll only ask when it's close to a 50-50 call to being advantage over. Maybe I just haven't screwed it up yet!

 

[Pegleg]

If you consistently call "advantage over" or "NO advantage we'll go back for the Penalty" making your own call every time, players will accept even if they don't agree. If you offer the choice this time but not the next time you ahave a mess waiting to explode.

 

[Christy]

i typed out 1 answer , but it didnt post ?
heres my answer again { shorter version }

if held up whilst still advantage { return to penalty only }
if held up whilst advantage over { scrum 5 meters only }

ive not read any where , or been taught
an advantage not over ,,becomes a choice between original penalty or scrum { as held up }

penalty could of been 10 meters from try line ,, why award 5 meters extra for scrum { unless as i say advantage was over }

its not a 2nd penalty that was awarded ,,where team can gain from most advantageous mark .

 

[SimonSmith]

If you consistently call "advantage over" or "NO advantage we'll go back for the Penalty" making your own call every time, players will accept even if they don't agree. If you offer the choice this time but not the next time you ahave a mess waiting to explode.

it's the bit in between "advantage blue" and "advantage over" that there's most grey.

With the better sides I referee, I tell the captain that if he doesn't want the advantage, then to say something. Otherwise it's my call, and once I say "over" there's no takesybacksy

 

[Pegleg]

Totally agree. What I don't want is a Q & A ongoing at advantage. If I'm playing advantage I make that call. The Captain can say NO thanks. But once I blow; my call. No discussion.

 

[crossref]

it's the bit in between "advantage blue" and "advantage over" that there's most grey.

With the better sides I referee, I tell the captain that if he doesn't want the advantage, then to say something. Otherwise it's my call, and once I say "over" there's no takesybacksy

I agree with that - once you say 'over' it's over.

But that wasn't the situation here, the ref hadn't said over. He was still playing adv blue ... and play came to a halt. Then with ball dead the ref has to decide: was advantage gained, or wasn't it?

Normally it will be obvious.
Very occasionally it won't be -- I don't see the harm in asking the captain.

 

[ChrisR]

If carrying the ball into the opponents goal is not gaining an advantage then you are saying that advantage can only be over if they score a try.

I disagree with that. I don't care if the PK offense is 5m out or 20m out if you get the ball into goal you have gained all the distance and tactical advantage possible.

In the split second of going from the FOP to goal I really doubt that any referee is going have to opportunity to call "Advantage over", but over it is.

I'm usually supportive of allowing the skipper to chose his option but not this time. He got it into goal, advantage over, 5m scrum.

 

[Drift]

Brumbies v Highlanders - TMO cannot see grounding.
Ref says to Brumbies captain
"It was held up, so you can go back for the penalty or take the scrum"

discuss?

Great management. Gave the players the options and they took what was more "advantageous" to them.

 

[Pegleg]

I agree with that - once you say 'over' it's over.

But that wasn't the situation here, the ref hadn't said over. He was still playing adv blue ... and play came to a halt. Then with ball dead the ref has to decide: was advantage gained, or wasn't it?

Normally it will be obvious.
Very occasionally it won't be -- I don't see the harm in asking the captain.

The bit in bold is critical for me. The law does not invite consultation with the captain.

You also say "normally it will be obvious" but to at least one poster this is clearly advantage over. Others are more judge it on it's merits, it may or may not be. So here ChrisR is in the "obviously over" camp so he does not refer to the captain for his opinion he gives a 5 mtr scrum to the attacking side. Five minute later. At the other end of the field a similar scenario occurs but the maul is held up short of the line. This time ChrisR is in the "not obviously over" camp so he asks the captain who says I'll take the PK please. Cue accusations of inconsistancy / (dare I say it ) bias.

Once you start inviting opinion (except where the law specificaly gives options) I feel you are inviting problems. Good luck if it works for you. I'd rather justify my own call to the advisor etc than justify the captain's call.

 

[didds]

I am certainly in the "offer the choice, its a trivial and quick thing to do" camp.

however, I can see that in fact what is likely then to happen is that very quickly every decision point will then be offered, which starts to enter the daft camp.

CF TMO usage, third umpire etc etc etc

didds

 

[DocY]

I disagree with that. I don't care if the PK offense is 5m out or 20m out if you get the ball into goal you have gained all the distance and tactical advantage possible.

You've gained all the territorial advantage possible, yes, but that might not be enough territory. If you're playing penalty advantage for an offense on half way, you're not going to say there was advantage gained if the team could have a scrum 5m into their opponents' half, so why apply a different criterion near the goal line?

If you have a maul from a lineout 5m out, a defender comes in from the side, play advantage, the maul goes over the goal line and the ball is held up are you really not going to go back for the penalty? I've never seen anyone do that before.

In a more extreme scenario: blue are two points down in injury time, red offend 5m out in front of the posts. Would you immediately blow up for the penalty? After all, blue could get over the goal line and knock on trying to ground the ball.

N.B. I can think of a case in an international where the ref was playing penalty advantage to white (close to the goal line), they were held up in in goal and he ended the game there. It came up in a society meeting and the conclusion was that it was very much a f*** up.

 

[ChrisR]

The primary question is, as always, "when is advantage over?".

The object of the game is to get the ball into the opponents goal and ground it to score the try. Gaining 5m at midfield is not the same as gaining 5m and getting into goal.

I am envisioning crossing the goal line in clear possession of the ball. There are other situations to be considered.

a. They kick the ball into goal but it goes dead or the defenders ground it. Back to the PK.

b. They knock-on into goal. Back to the PK.

c. They drive a maul into goal and it gets held up. Not in in clear possession then back to the PK.

The secondary question of asking the skipper what he wants is easy. No. Advantage is either over or it's not. It's your decision, not his.

 

[OB..]

Advantage is either over or it's not. It's your decision, not his.

So you do not allow a player/team to turn down advantage?

I don't see a simple answer to this conundrum.There are bits of law that require the referee to ask the captain which option he prefers, so there is no general principle against it.

If you want a general principal: it is the players' game, not the referee's. Most of the time, advantage not over simply means going back for the offence with no options available, so I don't really see any problem from proliferation.