ADVANTAGE WHEN TIME IS UP

[crossref]

I have observed the same @didds , As well as understand how to play adv, it's also important to understand when not to play it.

and I think a lot of time people are confused about the difference between scrum adv and PK adv.

 

[didds]

100% agree with your alst sentence esepcially!

 

[Phil E]

In my experiences I've found a lot of people annoyed and confused why refs run varying amounts and long distances of advantage.

I would suggest this may be an American thing. Mainstream American sports are very regimented, rugby isn't. American players and some referees want everything in black and white, whereas rugby is very grey...on purpose.

The referee has wide latitude to decisions if it allows a better game of rugby. The advantage law is the best one in the book, as it allows us not to blow the whistle, which is what every referee should be striving for.

I would suggest players need to think about what they would have got if the advantage hadn't been played? The advantage should be at least equal to that. However there are so many variables, skill of the players, have they got a decent kicker, are they getting murdered at set pieces, what's the weather like, etc, etc.

I remember Alan Biggs (for those who knew him) going to America to observe their referees. His conclusion was that they know every law in the book.....and are determined to use every single one of them!

 

[didds]

meanwhile a million years ago, when playing in Germany, i was left with the distinct impression some refs there would grab a law book at breakfast that day and randomly pick a law which they would then apply at every conceivable opportunity.

I once saw a player PKd at kickoff for starting outside the touch line to run into a ball kicked at kick off... for entering the field of play without the referee's permission...
The same ref I also recall in the same game awarded a conversion that had clearly missed (and i was standing 60/70m away!) because the TJ had waved his flag - even though (rightly or wrongly) it was side to side not UP! Those 2 points won the game for the kicking side...

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I suspect not society refs, but down here in the weeds the worst examples of this that I see are "club refs" aka coaches with a whistle (cos that is how we roll in England - but that's another whole thread...) that having WATCHED a lot of TV rugby and/or seen/played senior team rugby with society refs understand A concept of advantage but do exactly this... endless phases across the pitch with no territory gained for a scrum advantage... "to speed the game up" when in fact what they are doing is taking time out of the game because eventually they do blow, a minute later than they should have done and award the initial scrum. Which in itself is not even a point about not getting advantage as a concept properly, but not actually UNDERSTANDING the game that is in front of them. What si even scarier is that many of these people are ex or even current PLAYERS!

Spot on!

 

[jdeagro]

A fundemental priiple of advantage is that the non-offending side should gain at least what they could reasonalbly expect from the Penalty / scrum. Therefore there i a difference between the two. that is not inconsistant that is logical.

At the level I play and referee at scrums barely move, and most attacking teams are defended before gaining the 5 meters that the defending team is back from. So should a scrum territorial advantage be over after non-offending team advances the ball 1 meter?

From a Penalty advantage it is reasonalbe the expoect (skill level dependent) on a good gain of ground and the throw in. Or it maybe that three points is the "expectation" to bring in ideas like: "I've seen kicks go into touch backwards. They could also miss touch completely which certainly happens often enough. IMO, it doesn't make sense to go off of what-ifs because that leads to ambiguity."

"Skill level dependent" - so as my previous paragraph mentioned, it sounds like you agree scrum advantage would be quite minimal based on that skill level. Or are you explicitly saying only for penalty advantages should it depend on factors like skill level?

In any case, if it's skill level dependent, then my examples of what happens at the kick on a penalty are prevailing, because it's a common occurrence at the level I see. For reference, I just played in a game last weekend where between both sides, the successful penalty kicks for touch were about 5 out of 20. Majority of them stayed in field and landed in the hands of a defending player - a wasted penalty. Yes, you can argue that the teams need better kickers at this level of the game but that's besides the point of conversation here. So using your own criteria on "should gain at least what they could reasonalbly expect" - it seems like my metric of territorial advantage is fitting or otherwise proves that that criteria as ambiguous if you wouldn't apply it here.

Such "what ifs" surely mean no advantage should ever be played. "It might not happen so forget it".

No, it just means to determine what's reasonably expected, especially when considering varying skill levels (as you say) makes it an ambiguous metric, as my previous paragraph exemplifies.

The refereeing world except you accepts the general principles outlined in this thread. Does that not say something to you?

Little harsh mate, not sure why you're so offended. Not to mention 2.5 people in this thread doesn't constitute the "refereeing world".

The international refereeing world commonly allows a shit-show at rucks, lot of diving and uncontestable ball, doesn't mean I want to referee the same way just because that's what's common at their level.

At the end of the day, based on everything you've said so far, I find it ambiguous because I still don't know:

1. Do you consider variables like skill or not for how far to allow a territorial advantage?

2. Would you allow a 40 meter territorial advantage then to match what would've been reasonably possible if the team took a kick to touch on the penalty instead?

3. If the answer to #2 is yes, then do you agree that the territorial advantage is the better option in that case because the non-offending team gets to advance the ball just as far as if they kicked it but with the caveat that they can make mistakes and get a do-over at the penalty, as opposed to if they screwed up the kick, that's their one shot and done?

 

[crossref]

"to speed the game up" when in fact what they are doing is taking time out of the game because eventually they do blow, a minute later than they should have done and award the initial scrum.

advantage and time are quite mixed up together aren't they?

 

[jdeagro]

...rugby is very grey...on purpose.

The referee has wide latitude to decisions if it allows a better game of rugby.

Yes, I agree and I do like this aspect about rugby.

But even within the grey areas there's usually a commonality on how to reasonably apply the laws between refs. That commonality is important for the game to be consistent - no one enjoys a game of chess when the application of the rules vary significantly from one game to the next.

It sounds like some of you share some sort of commonality on the application of the advantage law, but I'm having a tough time understanding what that commonality is or how it works, at least based on what Marc's been telling me so far. The explanations I've been given so far sound ambiguous to me. I'm not saying they're wrong, I just don't fully understand the criteria. I previously thought my method of measure was if not fair, at least consistent.

I do seem to gather the notion that it's accepted, as you said, that advantage should be at least as beneficial to the non-offending team as if they just took the penalty. I'm curious as to why at least, meaning it can be more beneficial? To me it seems like it would always be more beneficial if for territorial advantage we allow the same distance as a reasonable kicker could kick, again given you get a do-over if you screw up during advantage. Do you agree?

 

[crossref]

I do seem to gather the notion that it's accepted, as you said, that advantage should be at least as beneficial to the non-offending team as if they just took the penalty. I'm curious as to why at least, meaning it can be more beneficial? To me it seems like it would always be more beneficial if for territorial advantage we allow the same distance as a reasonable kicker could kick, again given you get a do-over if you screw up during advantage. Do you agree?

yes, think this is exactly the reasoning that led WB to call advantage over in the incident discussed.
it was a PK advatage, and the non-offending team had gained 40-50m and still had possession -- so they had achieved as much as they would have expected with a PK so done

as you said above, for a scrum advantage just 1m might be enough, especially if they have clean possession. that's often as good as a scrum (better if the defence is in disarray)

 

[jdeagro]

yes, think this is exactly the reasoning that led WB to call advantage over in the incident discussed.
it was a PK advatage, and the non-offending team had gained 40-50m and still had possession -- so they had achieved as much as they would have expected with a PK so done

as you said above, for a scrum advantage just 1m might be enough, especially if they have clean possession. that's often as good as a scrum (better if the defence is in disarray)

Interesting but informative, thanks for the input. Cheers!

Do you think player skill level should affect the refs decision around that too?

 

[Phil E]

Yes, I agree and I do like this aspect about rugby.

It sounds like some of you share some sort of commonality on the application of the advantage law, but I'm having a tough time understanding what that commonality is or how it works, at least based on what Marc's been telling me so far. The explanations I've been given so far sound ambiguous to me. I'm not saying they're wrong, I just don't fully understand the criteria. I previously thought my method of measure was if not fair, at least consistent.

At a scrum advantage the none offending team could hope for clean ball from the back of the scrum, with some space to run into, or the opportunity to kick.

What advantage would give them that same thing?
They kick the ball away, as they would from the back of the scrum? Once they kick the advantage is over. They have gained a territorial advantage. Note that if they screw up the kick, that's not the refs fault.
Or they pass the ball and run forward past the gain line, or across the field into space. They have gained a territorial advantage, a tactical advantage, or both.

For a penalty they could reasonably expect to kick to touch and still maintain possession, or tap and pass into space.

What advantage would give them the same thing?
They need to get to where the kick to touch might have landed, or they need to pass into space and make an equivalent territorial advantage or a tactical advantage , or both. A kick and chase might suffice, a run int open space gaining significant territory might also do it.

As mentioned there are a lot of variables. It's no good giving a scrum to a team who are getting beaten at every scrum. It's no good giving a kick to touch to a team who can't find touch or are guaranteed to lose their own lineout. This is why the referee is the one who decides how long advantage lasts. This is also why the use of advantage is commented on in performance reviews.

How long should advantage last? How long is a piece of string? It's something gained with experience.

Hope that helps.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I give up. Thank god I don't referee or watch USA rugby.

 

[crossref]

Do you think player skill level should affect the refs decision around that too?

i think might sometimes be a factor (among many factors) eg if scrums are a complete mess for both teams, everyone might thank you for quickly calling KO adv over and getting on with the game, rather than another reset festival

 

[SimonSmith]

I give up. Thank god I don't referee or watch USA rugby.

I did 18 years in those trenches.

I'm far more challenged with my little groups in Alice. However, I went over the States as a B2 (I think). with very good law knowledge and a style where I didn't take BS.

As a result, my refereeing experience was easier, mentally, than RFU or Central Australia.

It was noticeable that referees who had done time abroad, or grown up playing abroad took a slightly different philosophical approach to the game. That is diminishing, but still there. A lot of the referee coaches I've interacted with try to issue mandates - stand here, stand there, do this, do that. With some limited exceptions very few are into problem solving, and enabling the referee to problem solve.

To go to Didd's statement about advantage...it's a recurrent theme with referees I coach. They play advantage in hope, and when asked "the non-offending team had no overlap, no size advantage, and no viable kick. When did you go back and forth across the pitch 2.5 times when they gained 2 meters?" there's a significantly %age who will say that they had been told X phases for a scrum advantage and Y phases for a PK advantage. They had an innate need for rules to referee by, and were challenged by the idea of exercising contextual judgment.

 

[Dickie E]

I give up. Thank god I don't referee or watch USA rugby.

are you as unpleasant in real life as you appear to be here?

 

[RemainingInTheGame]

This discussion has caused me to re-think my approach to advantage in my games.

As a newish referee I always just kind of play advantage, because with Juniors you can be pretty sure that something will happen to stop the advantage (i.e. another error / infringement) - and I'd prefer to fall into the category of too much advantage rather than not enough.

But I think I'm ready to start adding a contextual assessment and decision into calling it early, and have the confidence to call it if I think nothing will come out of if.

 

[Dickie E]

This discussion has caused me to re-think my approach to advantage in my games.

As a newish referee I always just kind of play advantage, because with Juniors you can be pretty sure that something will happen to stop the advantage (i.e. another error / infringement) - and I'd prefer to fall into the category of too much advantage rather than not enough.

But I think I'm ready to start adding a contextual assessment and decision into calling it early, and have the confidence to call it if I think nothing will come out of if.

as others have said, this comes with experience. But if you're going to err one way or the other, I'd rather play longer advantage rather than shorter. Let things breathe. We've all had those experiences where the ball pops out for good advantage nanoseconds after we've blown the whistle.

Penalty advantage is a bit trickier especially these days where a half decent kicker can slot a goal from halfway.

 

[crossref]

Just be careful that , preferring to err on the side of too long rather than too short ... that you don't push that too far and too mechanically,and end up being the refs in #120

 

[Dickie E]

Just be careful that , preferring to err on the side of too long rather than too short ... that you don't push that too far and too mechanically,and end up being the refs in #120

A lost 5 seconds is a small price if it facilitates a try

 

[crossref]

A lost 5 seconds is a small price if it facilitates a try

Yes indeed.
But losing a minute after every knock on would significantly reduce the time available for scoring tries