[Law] Advantage question

[crossref]

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.

of course it is!

if there is a dangerous tackle 1m from the line, but I play advantage for a fraction of a second to see if the victim can score anyway, I'm not going to say adv over if he crosses the try-line but fails to ground.

 

[ChrisR]

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

Law 8.5 More than one infringement

(a) When there is more than one infringement by the same team:


• 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 nonoffending team.

The choice occurs only after the referee has determined that advantage for the second offense has not been gained and the referee has stopped play. I agree that at that point offering the choice to the non-offending side is OK.

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.

You're skipping a crucial step. The referee first has to determine if advantage has been gained. That is his responsibility. Once gained then the period of advantage is over and there is no going back to the original offense. The period of advantage may end without advantage being gained if the ball is made dead. In those circumstances there may be alternative restarts that favor the non-offending side. This rarely occurs but DocY & crossref gave examples. Yes, offer the choice.

However, when advantage is still being played I think the referee should stick to his guidelines ('protocol') without trying to factor in the idiosyncrasies of the teams.

 

[ChrisR]

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.

I'm at a disadvantage because I can't play the video (I'm on dial-up) so my position is based on a general position rather than this specific event.

Waaaay back when in this thread I acknowledged that there can be situations where the ball goes into goal and advantaged has not accrued. The contested maul is one of them.

One of the great values of this forum, and this thread exemplifies it, is it confronts you with unusual issues as you sit comfortably with a cold one on hand instead of the pressure of a match.

Managing advantage is always going to be a point of variability from one referee to another but there should exist a consistent basis for determining when advantage has been gained.
Guidelines, convention, protocol or whatever you call it you should have something otherwise it's just arbitrary and that's not fair to the players.

This thread got a wee bit complicated because one incident generated two questions: "Had advantage ended?" and "Should a choice be offered to the skipper?".

I'm going to start a new thread poses a simple scenario and asks just one question.

 

[OB..]

You're skipping a crucial step. The referee first has to determine if advantage has been gained.

That is precisely the point I am challenging. I don't see why it is deemed essential for the referee to decide in the case under consideration. The referee stops play initially because the ball is held up, not because he has decided advantage is over. Whatever the referee decides, it may well be that the captain would have chosen differently. I do not see any disadvantage in asking him.

 

[ChrisR]

OB, we seem to be on a carousel and can't get off.

I have come to agree with you, and others, that if the referee is still playing advantage when he deems the ball held up then he can offer the choice of the 5m or a return to the PK.

However, in my opinion but not universally agreed with, carrying the ball into goal with the opportunity to score is all the gain necessary to end their advantage. Therefore we are not going back to the PK. Therefore there is no question to ask.

 

[crossref]

However, in my opinion but not universally agreed with, carrying the ball into goal with the opportunity to score is all the gain necessary to end their advantage. .

in which case you must be shouting 'advantage over' at that moment. In which case the question doesn't arrive.

but you HAVE to shout .. you can't stay quiet, and then when the ball is held up say "in retrospect advantage was already over when he crossed the line, but I forgot to say"

 

[ChrisR]

in which case you must be shouting 'advantage over' at that moment. In which case the question doesn't arrive.

but you HAVE to shout .. you can't stay quiet, and then when the ball is held up say "in retrospect advantage was already over when he crossed the line, but I forgot to say"

There is no requirement in law to declare the beginning or ending of advantage. That is a convention that has been universally adopted to communicate with the players. And i wholeheartedly support it.

But in real time I doubt very much that any referee would get to shout "Advantage over!" or even be thinking such if they were anticipating a try being scored. Nevertheless, that failure doesn't determine whether advantage is over.

I wouldn't have a problem with "Advantage ended when the ball was carried into goal. We're playing 5m scrum for held-up". Neither would the players.

 

[OB..]

I wouldn't have a problem with "Advantage ended when the ball was carried into goal. We're playing 5m scrum for held-up". Neither would the players.

I would. Maybe I will ask some players,because I don't share your conviction.

 

[ChrisR]

I would. Maybe I will ask some players,because I don't share your conviction.

Do you have a problem with my reason for ending advantage or that I didn't proclaim "Advantage over" before the ball was held up?

 

[crossref]

Generally you shout advantage over, at a time that the players don't agree, then I think most players will shrug, it's just a different view. Perhaps the captain will ask you later about it.

If you declare that in fact advantage was over earlier, but you didn't say anything, I think they will be incensed!

 

[DocY]

Do you have a problem with my reason for ending advantage or that I didn't proclaim "Advantage over" before the ball was held up?

Around here, I'd have a problem with both. It's not a recognised reason for advantage to be over (at least in my part of the woods) and therefore the players wouldn't be expecting it so you really should shout.

Edit: sometimes these things are lost when written down, but this was supposed to be said in a friendly way

 

[Pegleg]

There is no requirement in law to declare the beginning or ending of advantage. That is a convention that has been universally adopted to communicate with the players. And i wholeheartedly support it.

But in real time I doubt very much that any referee would get to shout "Advantage over!" or even be thinking such if they were anticipating a try being scored. Nevertheless, that failure doesn't determine whether advantage is over.

I wouldn't have a problem with "Advantage ended when the ball was carried into goal. We're playing 5m scrum for held-up". Neither would the players.

Making a rod for your own back.Give a clear call eg:

"Scrum advantage BLUE. Knock - on by RED."

or

"Penalty Advantage RED. Offside Blue 12."

You don't need to keep your arm out, especially if you are sprinting. BUT, as call of "Still playing advantage" and finally - "ADVANTAGE OVER" or "OK No Advantage let's go back for the penalty / scrum. "

In the opening scenario (assuming as "advantage over was not called we were till playing advantage):-

with a TMO, I'd have told the captains something like this. "Guys I'm going to check if a try was scored. If not we are going back for the Penalty."

Without a TMO It would have been. "Held up. No try guys, we are going back for the Penalty".


I don't like the bit in bold. If I've not called it over it's not. Not fair on the players otherwise.

Imagine the scenario. There's a passing move following a knock on the ball get passed along the backs, In your head it is advantage over. Just as you're about to call a player drops the ball. Do you say "Sorry it was advantage over. I just did not call it"

I'm ure we've all had the scenario where we've called "advantage over" and then the next pass is dropped. That's annoying. If it happens and you've just not called it that smacks of "Gottcha".

 

[ChrisR]

This thread is like Whack-a-Mole, pound one and another pops up.

In the normal course of events after a team infringes and the non-offending side have possession of the ball the referee will, within a few seconds, determine if any opportunity for advantage to exist.

If no advantage is possible I like to hear "peeep", and if the ball had come free "No advantage happening", then: "Team color, offense, sanction to team color". Why tell them no advantage? Because advantage should always be a consideration and you're letting them know it's not on.

If playing advantage then it's "sanction, "advantage", team color". No need to reference the offense. You can come back to that if need be.

When they gain the requisite advantage then it's "Advantage over". If not it's "peeep, "No advantage gained", team color, sanction".

All that has become, as some say, an expected part of referee to player communication. And I embrace it.

But it is not required by law. Advantage is always being played, whether you call it or not, until your whistle blows. And advantage can end before the words leave your lips.

I don't recommend that you adopt a vow of silence, neither will your coach/assessor, but advantage is a state of play and your words are a management tool.

 

[Dickie E]

This thread is like Whack-a-Mole,

you must be new around here, stranger :biggrin:

 

[crossref]

But it is not required by law. Advantage is always being played, whether you call it or not, until your whistle blows. And advantage can end before the words leave your lips.

I would disagree.
I would say that advantage is being played until either the whistle goes, or you announce advantage over.
If you have decided that advantage is over, but have not told the players, then I think you are doing it wrong.

(and yes of course there is necessarily some tiny amount of time between thought and action... But let's not get bogged down in those few milliseconds, that's not the issue here )

 

[ChrisR]

I would disagree.
I would say that advantage is being played until either the whistle goes, or you announce advantage over.
If you have decided that advantage is over, but have not told the players, then I think you are doing it wrong.

(and yes of course there is necessarily some tiny amount of time between thought and action... But let's not get bogged down in those few milliseconds, that's not the issue here )

In the normal run of things I'd agree. But "those few milliseconds" is the issue here. You are one quick thinkin', talkin' dude if you can get "Advantage over!" out between the player crossing the goal line and the ball being held up.

Now, if you reckon that carrying the ball into goal is insufficient to end advantage then we don't have an issue. But I think it does otherwise the only end to advantage would be for them to score the try.

I agree that in general play when you are just about to call "Advantage over" and they knock-on then you are better off keeping quiet and going back for the infringement.

 

[crossref]

if you reckon that carrying the ball into goal is insufficient to end advantage then we don't have an issue

I think it depends.

- ruck 1m from tryline
- I put my arm out for adv blue
- blue #9, seeing this, picks up and makes a dive for the heavily defended line
- I am certainly not going call adv over as he crosses the line. There's no advantage unless he scores

- ruck 50m from tryline
- I put my arm out for adv blue
- blue #9, seeing this, box kicks a speculative one for the winger
- who catches it and is clear, 20m from an undefended tryline with no defender in sight
- I very likely call adv over - well before the try is scored.


There is no rule that fits all.

 

[ChrisR]

Did a wee bit of editing for you .....

- ruck 50m from tryline
- I put my arm out for adv blue, but forgetting to say "Advantage Blue",
- blue #9, seeing this, box kicks a speculative one for the winger
- who catches it and is clear, 20m from an undefended tryline with no defender in sight
- before I can call "Advantage over!" the winger loses the ball forward.

Do you think the players expect you to go back for the scrum because you didn't get "Advantage over" out in time?

 

[crossref]

Do you think the players expect you to go back for the scrum because you didn't get "Advantage over" out in time?

Yes. The referee hasn't said 'Advantage Over' then advantage wasn't over.

Now, of course there are outlier cases, perhaps I have just swallowed a fly and couldn't speak, or had had got as far as "Adv" but not as far as "antage over" etc etc. In those outlier cases we have to be sensible and make a decision, and talk clearly to the captain.

But outside of those wierd outlier cases, if the referee hasn't said advantage over, then advantage isnt' over.

Do you seriously disagree with this? or are we just arguing over the extreme examples. Surely you don't routinely decide that advatage is over, but keep that decision to yourself?


If something happens at the exact same moment as you are saying AO, like
"Advant" [drops ball] "age over"

Then I quite like that old Spreadbury one
"Advantage Over -- Nearly"

 

[DocY]

perhaps I have just swallowed a fly and couldn't speak

I did that once. Pretty embarrassing. I didn't go quiet, but was making some very strange sounds until the next time I could blow my whistle!