ADVANTAGE WHEN TIME IS UP

[Stu10]

New Zealand had 3 penalty advantages, including kicked away, kick to touch and lineout, before getting a try at around 44 mins.

Not quite the same... you can't end the game on a penalty offence or incomplete penalty.

 

[crossref]

also the general sentiment seems to be that it would be 'unfair' on Australia if the game had ended.

but Australia were the team who managed to kick so poorly that the ball hit the referee. Why should they get a second chance?

and what about Portugla, they would have had posssession from that kick, instead we had an Australian scrum - the Ausssies who made the erro, were handed back possession..

It's not at all straightforward to say what is 'fair' All things considered I am still thinking that the best decision might have simply been to do what it says in the Laws and end the game\/

 

[BikingBud]

Not quite the same... you can't end the game on a penalty offence or incomplete penalty.

I get that entirely mate see post #57, after the diversion into cheese appreciation, where I listed the time Law.

It was just to highlight to one of our other forum members that advantage is not time bound, and that if offences continue then new advantages accrue.

 

[jdeagro]

Coming in late to this one, so maybe someone already said something similar, but I disagree with OP's initial statement here:

In this case WB considered that a 55m gain in territory was sufficient and yet, as time was up, Wales had no opportunity to benefit from that gain in territory and the only way they could have benefitted from the advantage being played was to score.

Regardless about time being up, it's still a territorial advantage that was gained. They were able to gain enough territory to be in a better position to score. Just because they didn't actually score, doesn't mean that the territory they gained wasn't advantageous. Their odds of scoring went up because of it, even though they didn't succeed.

To me it would be no different than trying to argue that after time expired an attacking player with advantage gets a breakaway run starting from within their own in-goal, burns everyone behind them after the first few meters, gets all the way down to the defending team's in-goal, stands there with the ball in hand with not another player in sight and then sneezes and knocks the ball on. They don't get a do-over just because they didn't capitalize on the advantageous gain in territory.

 

[Jz558]

Thank you for the very many replies which, overwhelmingly seem to suggest that Wales were given sufficient advantage to be allowed to score and the fact they didn't, doesn't mean the referee should go back for the penalty. I would, almost certainly, have done the same in the circumstances. In which case though, it does leave me wondering why we routinely go back for the penalty for an infringement closer to the goal line when teams fail to score even though they have gained territory and had the freedom to play as they wished?

 

[crossref]

Thank you for the very many replies which, overwhelmingly seem to suggest that Wales were given sufficient advantage to be allowed to score and the fact they didn't, doesn't mean the referee should go back for the penalty. I would, almost certainly, have done the same in the circumstances. In which case though, it does leave me wondering why we routinely go back for the penalty for an infringement closer to the goal line when teams fail to score even though they have gained territory and had the freedom to play as they wished?

Because it's rare for teams to get to a position better than the original PK (which enables them to kick for touch, gaining territory AND possession.)

Most often the only way they can better that is by scoring. So if they dont score they don't gain advantage

(I liked this particular decision though)

 

[Jz558]

Because it's rare for teams to get to a position better than the original PK (which enables them to kick for touch, gaining territory AND possession.)

Most often the only way they can better that is by scoring. So if they dont score they don't gain advantage

(I liked this particular decision though)

Which was the case in this scenario given that time had expired. They could only have benefitted by actually scoring.

 

[crossref]

Which was the case in this scenario given that time had expired. They could only have benefitted by actually scoring.

But I think he shouted ADV over before time expired?

If he announced ADV OVER after time had expired then I don't like the decision !

Obviously you need to take account of the clock when handling advantage (wink)

 

[Jz558]

But I think he shouted ADV over before time expired?

If he announced ADV OVER after time had expired then I don't like the decision !

Obviously you need to take account of the clock when handling advantage (wink)

The offence occured after time had expired and so the whole advantage was played after time.

 

[crossref]

Which makes it easier as everyone knew
And there is a stadium clock

Also need to consider the decisions made by the team .. they could have simply stopped playing and taken the PK

 

[jdeagro]

...In which case though, it does leave me wondering why we routinely go back for the penalty for an infringement closer to the goal line when teams fail to score even though they have gained territory and had the freedom to play as they wished?

Again, my stance is a territorial advantage was gained in the original scenario you described. For an infringement close to the goal line, it wouldn't be possible to gain a territorial advantage. It would depend how close to the goal line the infringement occurred, for me, because I usually am looking for territorial advantage being gained.

Tactical advantage is less common IMO. Only things like an up and over kick to a winger on an empty side of the field where he has no defenders ahead / in front of him, etc, is a tactical kind of advantage to me.

For territorial advantage, I'm typically happy if the attacking team has gained at least roughly 10 meters while advancing the ball. It's never going to be exact, but I feel that's justifiably at least as advantageous as if they didn't use the advantage and went back to the mark of the penalty (where the defending team would've had to retreat 10 meters from anyway).

-------------------------

I can appreciate the perspective between you and crossref in the last few replies that since the infringement occurred after time was over, and we know that a game can't end on a penalty but apparently can end on advantage being gained - even if not successfully used, that they might've been better off not taking their advantage and just going straight to the penalty.

But my counter to that is going straight to the PK doesn't necessarily mean they were better off either. Imagine they elected to kick for touch and missed, the defending team scoops up the ball and kicks it out, ending the game. Or they elected to kick for points, misses, goes out the back, game over. There are no do-overs in any of these cases. There's a multitude of scenarios where using the advantage may have put them in a better opportunity to score than taking the PK.

 

[crossref]

For territorial advantage, I'm typically happy if the attacking team has gained at least roughly 10 meters while advancing the ball. It's never going to be exact, but I feel that's justifiably at least as advantageous as if they didn't use the advantage and went back to the mark of the penalty (where the defending team would've had to retreat 10 meters from anyway).

10m isn't much as the PK would allow them to kick the ball probably 30m AND keep posssiession.

tactical advantage would be very rare for a PK - but we commonly see it with a scrum advantage, when refs say 'adv over' following a kick. That's basically the freedom to play how they wanted - booting the ball.

 

[jdeagro]

10m isn't much as the PK would allow them to kick the ball probably 30m AND keep posssiession.

Probably isn't definitely though. Straight to the PK would definitely mean the defending team needs to go back 10 meters. Territorial advantage to me is gaining at least that much.

Not to mention, I've seen guys shank the kick and the ball ended in touch behind where they took the kick from. lol.

 

[Phil E]

tactical advantage would be very rare for a PK -

Pass the ball across the field where you have a 3 on 1 overlap.
That's a tactical advantage to me?

 

[crossref]

Probably isn't definitely though. Straight to the PK would definitely mean the defending team needs to go back 10 meters. Territorial advantage to me is gaining at least that much.

Not to mention, I've seen guys shank the kick and the ball ended in touch behind where they took the kick from. lol.

if I was captain in that situation, I wouldn't be happy.

going forward I'd tell the team that when a PK is awarded to stop playing and take the PK.
I wouldn't want to risk adv being called 'over' with so little gained.

 

[crossref]

Pass the ball across the field where you have a 3 on 1 overlap.
That's a tactical advantage to me?

possibly -- for a scrum adv.

but for a PK advantage

1 - it sound like they are behind the gain line so have lost territory?
2 - and in my mind would be law

9.1.d Advantage Must be clear and real. A mere opportunity to gain an advantage is not sufficient

and this feels like an opportunity to gain an advantage

so ,no, i wouldn't be calling adv over just yet..

 

[jdeagro]

if I was captain in that situation, I wouldn't be happy.

going forward I'd tell the team that when a PK is awarded to stop playing and take the PK.
I wouldn't want to risk adv being called 'over' with so little gained.

I'm sure the captain wasn't too happy when his teammate kicked the ball to touch behind him too. Good thing there's a distinction between player and ref and we don't let players' feelings influence how we ref the game.

I hear you though and will internalize and re-evaluate how I currently call it. But it would make for a good thing to have a standard all refs went by (whether its 10m, 20m etc) as opposed to basing it on ifs and buts of what the non-offending team possibly could've done otherwise. E.g. Team ABC has the world record punter who could've kicked it 70m to touch, so if they use their advantage let them go for 70m...

A few times I've seen different refs allow significantly different amounts of territorial advantage that leads to confusion to players and coaches all around.

 

[Phil E]

possibly -- for a scrum adv.

but for a PK advantage

1 - it sound like they are behind the gain line so have lost territory?
2 - and in my mind would be law

9.1.d Advantage Must be clear and real. A mere opportunity to gain an advantage is not sufficient

and this feels like an opportunity to gain an advantage

so ,no, i wouldn't be calling adv over just yet..

Advantage can be tactical OR territorial.
They have gained a tactical advantage by having 3 players against 1.

There is a difference between having the opportunity to gain an advantage, and having the advantage but buggering it up.

In this case they have gained the advantage by having the overlap, what they do with it is up to them.

 

[crossref]

I'm sure the captain wasn't too happy when his teammate kicked the ball to touch behind him too. Good thing there's a distinction between player and ref and we don't let players' feelings influence how we ref the game.

I hear you on that -- but also on the other hand, if it's grass roots rugby it's all for enjoyment at the end of the day and as refs we're facilitating their game and hoping that at the end of the game they generally feel like they've had a good game of rugby..

I hear you though and will internalize and re-evaluate how I currently call it. But it would make for a good thing to have a standard all refs went by (whether its 10m, 20m etc) as opposed to basing it on ifs and buts of what the non-offending team possibly could've done otherwise. E.g. Team ABC has the world record punter who could've kicked it 70m to touch, so if they use their advantage let them go for 70m...

I don't think you can have a standard distance, that would apply anywhere on the field, and in all conditions.

for me the consistent standard is : have the team arrived at a position that (had you been able to asked them) they would have swapped for the PK.

A few times I've seen different refs allow significantly different amounts of territorial advantage that leads to confusion to players and coaches all around.

a lot of times people confuse scrum adv with PK advantage.

If they beat the gain line, and have clean possession then just that is very often as good as having a scrum would give them so adv over.

 

[jdeagro]

I don't think you can have a standard distance, that would apply anywhere on the field, and in all conditions.

Eh I think that's a bit of a blanket statement that could've been said about a lot of laws as they were being formed in rugby. I think it would be fairly easy to cover most scenarios if a standard was put into place. Maybe it becomes a duty of the ARs to assist with where that mark is (since they should be marking up the back 10m mark for the offending team anyway). Sure, there may need to be some adaptation by the players and ref, in some cases, but consistency is typically a good thing in rugby. I don't think you can have consistency when you base your decision on what-ifs.

Also, without some sort of distance standard (roughly speaking or not), what's the point of even calling it a territorial advantage? Any territorial advantage is indeed implicitly a tactical advantage too, because with a gain in territory you've tactically gained a better chance of scoring - i.e. it's always good tactics to bring the ball closer to your opponents' in-goal and away from your own.

Maybe I'm being pedantic on words now, idk.