[Law] Advantage question

[OB..]

If you were not sure if an offence had happened you'd not ask the captain.

Red herring. You know perfectly well that the two teams would have opposing views.

So why here.

In our case the same team gets the benefit of either the PK or the scrum and you are insisting that the referee MUST make the decision.

As soon as you give them "authority" your's is undermined.

No more than when offering a choice of lineout or scrum.

Not in an "I'm the boss" way but some one has to be in control.

This has nothing to do with control. It is all about the tactical benefit.

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.

I don't know about your assessors, but this one would not be making any such judgements. I would see him as showing empathy with the players - it's their game, not his. This is not a matter of deciding if advantage is over or not - it is a matter of deciding if, when play is stopped, a team prefers to go back to a penalty or take the the result of the stoppage. Nobody is asking a team to decide if "advantage over" applies in other cases.

 

[The Fat]

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

Approximately 10m from the goal line.
from 16:19 on the youtube clock

 

[OB..]

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.

Play has stopped because the ball was held up. Your argument is that the referee MUST decide if that was sufficient tactical advantage as against going back for the PK. I really do not see why in this situation the referee should be required to impose his view.

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.

No. the question is whether or not a scrum at point X is better than a PK at point Y. You have decided there is a protocol that forces the referee to make that decision. I see no benefit in such a protocol, and challenge it's existence.

 

[Christy]

Approximately 10m from the goal line.
from 16:19 on the youtube clock

I dont see from clip how question arised.
4 white off side , ref played penalty advantage ,,nothing came of it .
Ref has awarded penalty to blue team .

 

[The Fat]

I dont see from clip how question arised.
4 white off side , ref played penalty advantage ,,nothing came of it .
Ref has awarded penalty to blue team .

Just after he gives the signal for the penalty, he tells the captain he can have either the 5m attacking scrum or the original PK

 

[Pegleg]

Red herring. You know perfectly well that the two teams would have opposing views.

Just using the absurd line that others favour.

... you are insisting that the referee MUST make the decision. No more than when offering a choice of lineout or scrum.

Red herring! You know perfectly well, that in the one case the law book gives the option, whilst in the other it does not.

This is not a matter of deciding if advantage is over or not - it is a matter of deciding if, when play is stopped, a team prefers to go back to a penalty or take the the result of the stoppage. Nobody is asking a team to decide if "advantage over" applies in other cases.

It is a case of deciding because IF advantage is over you can't go back if it is not then you do. your are making up laws it you allow yourself to go back.

I would see him as showing empathy with the players - it's their game, not his. This is not a matter of deciding if advantage is over or not - it is a matter of deciding if, when play is stopped, a team prefers to go back to a penalty or take the the result of the stoppage. Nobody is asking a team to decide if "advantage over" applies in other cases.

Empathy involves putting yourself in their place. You can do that and make the call that you are put their to make. I'd like to think that is part of the process I go through every time I play advantage. Do I get it right every time? I doubt it. But I hope I'm consistent and honest.


A I say I'm not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine. So rather than go around in circles. I'll leave it to others to make their own minds up.

 

[crossref]

I have made my mind up

 

[DocY]

Personally, I think this has been one of the more useful threads recently. Pegleg made some very good points a few pages ago about why it might be a bad idea, which are worth thinking about.

I don't think it'll change my overall approach to these situations, but I have more to consider now. Basically to be careful because there are ways you can screw it up - if you get it wrong it could end up undermining your authority (players thinking you don't know what you're doing) and make you look a prize tit ("scrum here or penalty there?" "where's the penalty ref?" "over there, x meters in from touch and y meters back. No, not there, over there" "oh, we thought it was there, can we actually have the scrum?"). As I say, I don't think I'm going to stop doing it - I'm just going to be more careful.

Though I didn't hear the ref ask in this clip, I think I can see why he offered the choice there: the Brumbies had just had a very strong scrum, so he was probably thinking "scrum V is probably advantage if they're going to scrummage like that, but it'll look a bit weird if I don't go back for the penalty, so I'd better check". And it was as well he did so.

 

[OB..]

You know perfectly well, that in the one case the law book gives the option

Knock-on into touch was a new bit of law, so of course it had to be spelled out.

whilst in the other it does not.

You are choosing to infer that spelling it out in one case implies the referee MUST decide in others. That is not a necessary inference.

It is a case of deciding because IF advantage is over you can't go back if it is not then you do. your are making up laws it you allow yourself to go back.

In some situations, Law 8 allows you to go back "to the offence which is most advantageous". It does NOT say the referee must decide that himself.

Empathy involves putting yourself in their place.

It means taking their views into account, rather than replacing them with your own.

A I say I'm not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine. So rather than go around in circles. I'll leave it to others to make their own minds up.

True. And I still don't understand why some think it so important for the referee to make the decision in this situation.

 

[Christy]

Just after he gives the signal for the penalty, he tells the captain he can have either the 5m attacking scrum or the original PK

Sorry , im missing some thing here.
He plays advantage from penalty = i understand
He goes back for penalty = i understand.
He tells blue , he can have penalty or scrum @ 5 meters = i accept this was said , as i was told it was what happened.

The initial post suggests it was held up ?
Im not seeing ball held up .
I see a fumbled pass , white turn over ( cant see if maybe knocked on ) .( is this why scrum option , was it knocked on ) ?
So i at odds , as to how a scrum is an option .
( or is it a scrum at place of penalty ).
Sorry guys , im baffled by whole thread.

 

[DocY]

The initial post suggests it was held up ?
Im not seeing ball held up .
I see a fumbled pass , white turn over ( cant see if maybe knocked on ) .( is this why scrum option , was it knocked on ) ?
So i at odds , as to how a scrum is an option .
( or is it a scrum at place of penalty ).
Sorry guys , im baffled by whole thread.

No C&O try or infringement (FWIW, I thought it was probably a knock on) so attacking scrum 5.

 

[crossref]

Christy, the thread turned into a general discussion about the principles involved, rather than just about that specific incident

 

[Christy]

I see now i was looking at wrong clip ,
Thought it was 16 mins into game .
I watched whole vidio as i wasnt seeing it at all.
Turns out it was the 73rd min of playing time .

Ok ,
For me ball looked slightly lost forward , at grounding .
However .
I think ref simply played scrum for held up .
I dont see he offered a choice of back to original penalty ( his wording was bit muddled , he suggested he will take play back from the penalty advantage from the scrum ).
I dont think he offered a scrum penalty at 5 meter line ( it was alwys scrum for held up ).

In relation to thread .
About offering choices . I dont agree .
Its a restart from ( back to penalty mark only ) if no advantage got .
Or its a restart from ( new offence ) if advantage is over ..

 

[ChrisR]

Play has stopped because the ball was held up. Your argument is that the referee MUST decide if that was sufficient tactical advantage as against going back for the PK. I really do not see why in this situation the referee should be required to impose his view.

Because that is his responsibility. As stated in law 8.1. I believe, others don't, that carrying the ball into goal has satisfied the tactical and/or territorial requirements for advantage to be over. In that case either the 'held up' or 'knock on' gets them the 5m and no going back to the PK.

If you don't believe that advantage was over then my first reaction is to go back to the PK. However, as 'held up' or 'knock on in/into goal' both yield a 5m then I would have to consider a skipper asking for the 5m. But only if I was still playing advantage.

No. the question is whether or not a scrum at point X is better than a PK at point Y. You have decided there is a protocol that forces the referee to make that decision. I see no benefit in such a protocol, and challenge it's existence.

The decision the referee is making is whether advantage has been satisfied, either territorial or tactical. That decision is made frequently in the course of the game. And those decisions should be subject to a protocol that the referee should employ consistently throughout the match. The protocol should be consistent across referees in a society and beyond. That protocol should not include an analysis of a teams strengths or weaknesses to determine outcome.

We have acknowledged that the protocol changes from scrum to penalty offence and it can take into account the nature of the restart if the ball is made dead. An example would be if a team, playing PK advantage, kicks the ball 50m to touch. If they kick from behind their 22 they gain 50m; from in front and the LoT comes back. In my protocol the first is advantage over, the second is back to the PK. You may say that protocol sucks but I'm still on the hook to make that call.

 

[The Fat]

Did Angus Gardner actually call advantage over at any stage? I don't think he did in which case he has not painted himself into a corner i.e. He has waited to see if the blue team has in fact received an advantage.
I don't mind the approach he has taken here. Had he called advantage over as soon as the player looked like making it to the in-goal, he would have only one option.
From memory, I think his first communication with the TMO was about a possible knock on hence why he hadn't called advantage over. The TMO comes back with a response re grounding.

 

[crossref]

If you don't believe that advantage was over then my first reaction is to go back to the PK. However, as 'held up' or 'knock on in/into goal' both yield a 5m then I would have to consider a skipper asking for the 5m. But only if I was still playing advantage

Exactly. In that circumstance it's correct to listen to the captain.

 

[Pegleg]

If you don't believe that advantage was over then my first reaction is to go back to the PK. However, as 'held up' or 'knock on in/into goal' both yield a 5m

But they give the DEFENDING side the scrum. If advantage is over then the attacking side has LOST the ball. IF held up over the line then the attacking side KEEPS the ball. If advantage is not over it is a PK back at the mark.

You need to be careful what you're asking Chris, because you're about to ask the attacking side's captain: "Do you want the PK or a scrum to the other side?" Now I wonder what he is going to reply?

In the scenario in the video I'm calling advantage not over and back for the PK.

The reason for this post is not to reenter the should you consult or not. Just that a basic point of law is confused in Chris's post. Asking in this scenario whould be completely wrong.

 

[ChrisR]

Pegleg, you are quite correct. A knock-on would give the defenders the put in at the scrum. Thanx for pointing that out. Sorry for the BF.
If the call is held-up then the attacking side get the put so there could be a reason to ask.

I think we agree that the first decision is the status of advantage. You'd still be playing advantage (and no advantage gained) but for me it ended when he took the ball into goal.

 

[OB..]

The protocol should be consistent across referees in a society and beyond. That protocol should not include an analysis of a teams strengths or weaknesses to determine outcome.

I pointed out earlier that Law 8 specifically allows the choice.

In some situations, Law 8 allows you to go back "to the offence which is most advantageous". It does NOT say the referee must decide that himself.

In open play the referee decides if/when advantage is over unless the team declines to play advantage. There are some guidelines, but basically it is individual judgement by the referee.

Normally that means play on if advantage is over, or go back for the sanction if not.

If the referee starts a second advantage, the law used to say that "no advantage" meant going back to the first offence, but it has been changed to "most advantageous".

In the case being discussed, there is no second advantage, but there are two possibilities, both giving the ball to the attacking team. This is a gap in the law. I have been unconvinced by arguments that it is best to require the referee to make the choice.

 

[The Fat]

Pegleg, you are quite correct. A knock-on would give the defenders the put in at the scrum. Thanx for pointing that out. Sorry for the BF.
If the call is held-up then the attacking side get the put so there could be a reason to ask.

I think we agree that the first decision is the status of advantage. You'd still be playing advantage (and no advantage gained) but for me it ended when he took the ball into goal.

But you know that the ball carrier has gone into in-goal either because you've been told that's what eventually happened or because you have seen the video and the end result.
I'm not convinced Angus Gardiner knew if the ball had made into the in-goal for a possible grounding before he thought there may have been a knock-on which is why I believe he hasn't actually called advantage over.

If we had a scenario where red were attacking and a maul formed 5m out from blue's goal line and a blue defender entered from the side with the referee now playing a penalty advantage to red. If the maul quickly moved across the goal line, would you immediately call advantage over just because the ball carrier is now in-goal even though he is held several defenders?

What I'm saying is that I think it is possible for the ball carrier to go in-goal and advantage not automatically be over.