[Law] Advantage question

[Pegleg]

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

That's not the same question though is it.

Ref calls "Offside red 12. Penalty advantage Blue".

Blue Captain says: " Can we have the PK please"

That's fair enough.

Ref (playing advantage) "OK that's going nowhere. Blue captain Do you want to call Advantage over and it's a scrum here or Go back for the PK over there?"

For me that is not on.

Looking at the scenario I mentioned earlier where advantage is being played but the ball is held up before going to in goal. The outcome is now very different. Advantage was still "live" we go back to a PK (with a scrum option) If advantage is over then the scrum is now to the other side. A very different picture.

Ref is effectively saying: "Boys I 'm not sure what to do here. So Captain do you want no advantage and a PK to you or advantage over and a scrum to them?" Sorry that sends all thewrong messages to the players.



Law 6.A.4(a) & 6.A.7(e) Put the call in the referees hands firmly. the ref consults only in hte sense of options. IF the referee feels advantage is over (that is his judgement of fact) then the options that come as a result should be offered as required. IF the referee feels advantage was not over / gained (again soley his judgement) he then offers any appropriate options.

 

[DocY]

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.

(My emphasis) The objective is to get the ball into in goal and ground it. If you've got it into in goal but not grounded it, you have not fulfilled that objective.

Like a lot in rugby, a hard and fast rule can cause you problems. Sure, if they have a clear opportunity to touch down (play they ball as they wish) - sauntering around behind the posts before touching down, for example - I might call AO before they've scored (but probably not - seems a bit like a waste of breath for all the difference it'd make). But someone being losing the ball in the tackle as they cross the line? Someone being tackled into TiG? I think you'd be on a bit of a sticky wicket if you didn't go back for the penalty.

 

[DocY]

That's not the same question though is it.

Ref calls "Offside red 12. Penalty advantage Blue".

Blue Captain says: " Can we have the PK please"

That's fair enough.

Ref (playing advantage) "OK that's going nowhere. Blue captain Do you want to call Advantage over and it's a scrum here or Go back for the PK over there?"

For me that is not on.

Looking at the scenario I mentioned earlier where advantage is being played but the ball is held up before going to in goal. The outcome is now very different. Advantage was still "live" we go back to a PK (with a scrum option) If advantage is over then the scrum is now to the other side. A very different picture.

Ref is effectively saying: "Boys I 'm not sure what to do here. So Captain do you want no advantage and a PK to you or advantage over and a scrum to them?" Sorry that sends all thewrong messages to the players.



Law 6.A.4(a) & 6.A.7(e) Put the call in the referees hands firmly. the ref consults only in hte sense of options. IF the referee feels advantage is over (that is his judgement of fact) then the options that come as a result should be offered as required. IF the referee feels advantage was not over / gained (again soley his judgement) he then offers any appropriate options.

I see what you mean and I agree with the examples you've given - what you've described there isn't on.

But I do think there are some situations where it's okay. Advantage for a penalty 15m out right in front of the posts, you're still playing advantage (let's assume you've just shouted so) when they're held up 5m in from the touch line. I don't see the problem with offering them a choice there.

I realise it's not in the laws, but I still can't see a problem with it. To me, it's like offering a choice between a scrum or lineout when there's a knock on into touch.

 

[ChrisR]

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.

When the referee states "Playing advantage" I support that the non-offending captain can call the advantage off.

I thought that my post was quite clear that the first decision is about when advantage is over and that crossing into goal with ball in hand ended advantage so there is no question to be asked.

I agree that there will be circumstances when the ball goes into goal and there is no opportunity to score so that no advantage accrued.

I agree that one size does not fit all and yes, it is a players game.

Let me pose another scenario.

Playing penalty advantage to a team inside it's 22. Player kicks ball into touch 50m downfield. Now it's gain of 50m but loss of possession vs. going back to the PK.

Do you offer the skipper that choice? What if the ball comes down in the FOP and the receiving team is under pressure?

My point is the referee has to make that decision and each referee will have his own criteria.

Whether you offer choices to the players after the fact is a separate issue.

 

[OB..]

Ref (playing advantage) "OK that's going nowhere. Blue captain Do you want to call Advantage over and it's a scrum here or Go back for the PK over there?"

For me that is not on.

I don't think anybody is advocating asking during play. The situation I am looking at occurs when play is stopped for some reason.

Looking at the scenario I mentioned earlier where advantage is being played but the ball is held up before going to in goal.

Perhaps a good approach is to call "Still playing advantage", which you can hear quite often.

6.A.4 and 6.A.7, in a rigid interpretation, do not allow a player to reject advantage, yet we do.

If the referee calls "advantage over", then there is no dispute. However if he calls "held up" and stops play for that reason, I cannot see why the players would object to being asked to choose between the scrum and the original PK. In mid-field, the referee will invariably use his own judgement to go back to the PK. Near the goal line a team may see it differently.

I do not see a downside to asking. Is it really his job to decide what suits the team best?

 

[ChrisR]

Is it really his job to decide what suits the team best?

No, but it is his job to decide when advantage is over. And if advantage is over (that is, advantage has been gained), regardless of whether the referee has stated as such, then there is no going back to the original offence.

If no advantage gained, and some regard taking the ball into goal as insufficient gain, then it's back to the original offense.

In the OP the defenders have committed no further offense so if you accept that the ball has been held up in goal then you must accept that they have gained the advantage and award the 5m.

If you believe that having the ball held up prevents advantage being gained then it's back to the PK.

Therefore, award the 5m or go back to the PK. Offering a choice may seem player friendly but I think it's not good management.

 

[OB..]

Is it really his job to decide what suits the team best?

No, but it is his job to decide when advantage is over.

He has the power to do so. That is not the same as saying he must always exercise that power.

And if advantage is over (that is, advantage has been gained), regardless of whether the referee has stated as such, then there is no going back to the original offence.

Advantage is only over if the referee says so. The idea of it being over even if the referee says nothing implies it must derive from something in the law, which I don't think it does.

If no advantage gained, and some regard taking the ball into goal as insufficient gain, then it's back to the original offense.

In the OP the defenders have committed no further offense so if you accept that the ball has been held up in goal then you must accept that they have gained the advantage and award the 5m.

If you believe that having the ball held up prevents advantage being gained then it's back to the PK.

Therefore, award the 5m or go back to the PK. Offering a choice may seem player friendly but I think it's not good management.

I don't understand why you think it is bad management. That is surely the crucial point.

 

[ChrisR]

The period of advantage ends when the referee deems it so or the ball is dead. The ball may be made dead before the referee calls it.

If that happens the referee must still determine as to whether advantage was gained or to return to the offense. An example would be playing advantage and the ball carrier goes into touch at the point that the referee was about to call advantage over.

Same situation in the OP. Referee calls ball held up. The period of advantage has ended but he still has to determine if advantage was gained or not. Gained = 5m scrum, not gained = return to PK.

Gained or not gained is binary. Anything else is 'making it up' and that's poor management.

 

[DocY]

So a slightly different situation:

Blue need a try to win and are playing advantage for a penalty close to the red goal line and the touchline. The ball goes into touch off red (while still playing advantage) 5m from their goal line.

Would anyone think it bad management for the ref to say: "Blue, do you just want the lineout?"

 

[Pegleg]

I don't think anybody is advocating asking during play. The situation I am looking at occurs when play is stopped for some reason.

Perhaps a good approach is to call "Still playing advantage", which you can hear quite often.

6.A.4 and 6.A.7, in a rigid interpretation, do not allow a player to reject advantage, yet we do.

If the referee calls "advantage over", then there is no dispute. However if he calls "held up" and stops play for that reason, I cannot see why the players would object to being asked to choose between the scrum and the original PK. In mid-field, the referee will invariably use his own judgement to go back to the PK. Near the goal line a team may see it differently.

I do not see a downside to asking. Is it really his job to decide what suits the team best?

The referee decides not during the play but at the moment he stops play. It's his job to decide if advantagre has or has nor been gained. The law explicitly state he cannot consult with "others". The times where he can override that are set down TMO etc. The captains are not included. The captains get consulted as to options, again these are laid down in the law. As there are clearly laid down exceptions to the "no consultation" law. I do think this would be included if that was WR's desire.

"Still playing advantage" is not the same as asking the captain what call he wants. During that period yes the player could "drop" the ball so we come back for the PK or he can keep trying to use the advantage. That is the players choice.

We are not going to change each others minds on this.

 

[ChrisR]

So a slightly different situation:

Blue need a try to win and are playing advantage for a penalty close to the red goal line and the touchline. The ball goes into touch off red (while still playing advantage) 5m from their goal line.

Would anyone think it bad management for the ref to say: "Blue, do you just want the lineout?"

Yes. poor management.

By the criteria upon which you judge advantage: Has advantage been gained? Yes = Blue get lineout. No = back to the PK.

I'm sympathetic to the idea but .....

In your scenario if the hooter sounds as you're playing advantage do you still ask him?

 

[crossref]

Gained or not gained is binary. Anything else is 'making it up' and that's poor management.

I think you are ignoring the point of this thread.. sometimes it's not binary, some times its a fine call between two different outcomes.

You keep saying that it is bad management to talk to the captain but like OB I don't really understand why you think that. My view is that you are following a very rigid approach, and rigidity is not usually a sign of good management. Rigidity leads you up blind alleys, where you force yourself to make a poor decision for the sake of a rule/principle that could, in fact, be broken.

I had a incident last season (described here in a thread ) where I was playing a PK advantage to blue and then red attempted an interception and knocked on. I went back to the PK, but the blue captain asked me couldn't they have the scrum instead? I said yes and we had the scrum. I know you will see that as bad management, but to me it seems sensible. Why insist that the PK is more of an advantage to them when plainly it isn't.

 

[Pegleg]

If you were not sure if an offence had happened you'd not ask the captain. So why here. As soon as you give them "authority" your's is undermined. Not in an "I'm the boss" way but some one has to be in control. If, as a player, a ref consulted my captain about advantagre being over or not I and my fellow forward would be putting the question to underminue the tref. I see someone lacking in confidence to "make the calls". The feedback to the society would be long the lines of: Not assured / confident etc.

 

[Dickie E]

If, as a player, a ref consulted my captain about advantagre being over or not

Pegsy, the point of the discussion isn't about consulting if advantage is over or not. Clearly advantage is not over or the ref wouldn't offer a choice. The question is: can the ref offer the sanction of the pre-advantage offence or some other restart. I would be of the view that only the pre-offence sanction can be awarded

 

[crossref]

yes, I just don't agree.
I feel that in these rare outlier situations your approach - while generally perfectly good - if rigidly followed can lead you into a the wrong result: you are telling blue team that A is more of an advantage to them than B, when you and they all know that it isn't. That feels a bit jobsworth.

 

[ChrisR]

You keep saying that it is bad management to talk to the captain but like OB I don't really understand why you think that.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you don't have a reason to ask him as he hasn't a decision to make.

Rigidity leads you up blind alleys, where you force yourself to make a poor decision for the sake of a rule/principle that could, in fact, be broken.

There is a difference between 'rigidity' and 'consistency to protocol'. In this scenario the flexibility all occurs in determining when when advantage has been gained and, therefor, is over.

I had a incident last season (described here in a thread ) where I was playing a PK advantage to blue and then red attempted an interception and knocked on. I went back to the PK, but the blue captain asked me couldn't they have the scrum instead? I said yes and we had the scrum. I know you will see that as bad management, but to me it seems sensible. Why insist that the PK is more of an advantage to them when plainly it isn't

.

Upon further reflection, in your scenario and DocY's I'm open to them asking for the lineout or scrum where you would other wise still be playing advantage. My reasoning is that their selection can be considered a tactical advantage.

That logic doesn't apply to the OP because, in my mind, advantage has ended when they carry the ball into goal.

 

[ChrisR]

And there is the scenario, not too far-fetched, where the non-offenders kick the ball more or less cross-field and the ops knock it into touch. Now your menu is line-out, scrum at the LoT or back to the PK. But .... you still have to determine that you were still playing advantage or did they kick it away.

 

[Pegleg]

yes, I just don't agree.
I feel that in these rare outlier situations your approach - while generally perfectly good - if rigidly followed can lead you into a the wrong result: you are telling blue team that A is more of an advantage to them than B, when you and they all know that it isn't. That feels a bit jobsworth.

I would not say they'd gained the advantage if the bit in bold was the case. If it is not CLEAR AND OBVIOUS to me that an advantage (particularly with a PK advantage) then it probably has not accrued.

I'm on the field to make that call. I may not get it right but abdicate the role to an "interested party" is not in the role.

 

[The Fat]

All quite a read.
Only comments I would make is that if some are arguing that we MUST stick strictly to the written law, then you cannot allow a player to "drop" the ball in order to decline playing on in an attempt for an advantage to accrue. Strictly speaking, that player (and we all know it will be the bloody #9) has intentionally offended.
If the laws are applied in strict accordance with how they are written, you will;
(a) Blow the pea out of your whistle
(b) Ruin a potentially good/enjoyable game of rugby
(c) have absolutely no empathy for the game
(d) Piss off 30+ players and whoever else bothered to turn up to watch

 

[Christy]

Can somebody pleass advise where the penalty advantage was being played from ,
From camquin 1st posting .
Thanks