ADVANTAGE WHEN TIME IS UP

[crossref]

i do agree on 'tactical' v 'territorial' advantage - they are so closely linked

Seems to me that tactical advantage basically amounts to an opportunity to get what really matters : a territorial advantage.

 

[Phil E]

i do agree on 'tactical' v 'territorial' advantage - they are so closely linked

Seems to me that tactical advantage basically amounts to an opportunity to get what really matters : a territorial advantage.

Don't think so:

Advantage :

a. May be tactical. The non-offending team is free to play the ball as they
wish.

b. May be territorial. Play has moved towards the offending team's dead-ball
line.

 

[crossref]

yes, but 'play the ball as they wish' almost always means : the playing the ball in the way that they calculate most likely to gain territory .... doesn't it?

I guess one other thing it could mean is : hold on to possession for a few seconds until the clock goes red, and then kick it out to end the game

 

[Phil E]

yes, but 'play the ball as they wish' almost always means : the playing the ball in the way that they calculate most likely to gain territory .... doesn't it?

No.
I could kick pass from one wing to another and gain a tactical advantage, with no territorial advantage.

 

[jdeagro]

No.
I could kick pass from one wing to another and gain a tactical advantage, with no territorial advantage.

Sure but it would only make sense to if that other winger was more likely to gain a territorial advantage as a result of that after, no? Every decision we do is ultimately to gain territory so that we can be in a better position to score - even if that initially requires no gain or a loss in territory. So despite what the laws of advantage say, by way of how the game is designed, and by definition of what those words actually mean, they are pretty closely linked. I agree with crossref.

 

[crossref]

No.
I could kick pass from one wing to another and gain a tactical advantage, with no territorial advantage.

Well, that cross kick happens all the time as the team know that if the receiving winger fails to catch the ball, or catches it and is tackled , then the ref invariably says 'no adv' and brings it back for the PK

Making the cross kick itself does not mean that they have gained adv.

 

[Phil E]

Sure but it would only make sense to if that other winger was more likely to gain a territorial advantage as a result of that after, no? Every decision we do is ultimately to gain territory so that we can be in a better position to score - even if that initially requires no gain or a loss in territory. So despite what the laws of advantage say, by way of how the game is designed, and by definition of what those words actually mean, they are pretty closely linked. I agree with crossref.

Advantage can be both Tactical and Territorial, but in the example you can't have the latter without the former.
I'm done now.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

A

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).

Really? 10 metres for a penalty advantage? MOst kickers can put the ball into touch 30 to 40 metres up field with the thrown to come .!0 metres is nothing.

 

[jdeagro]

Advantage can be both Tactical and Territorial, but in the example you can't have the latter without the former.
I'm done now.

Heh, again maybe I'm being pedantic on words, but I don't think it's possible to have a territorial advantage that isn't also tactically advantageous.

 

[jdeagro]

Really? 10 metres for a penalty advantage? MOst kickers can put the ball into touch 30 to 40 metres up field with the thrown to come .!0 metres is nothing.

Sure they can but doesn't mean they would when they take that kick. As I previously stated, 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.

When a penalty infringement occurs, the non-offending team is entitled to 10-meters free of opposition. That always is true, not based on what-ifs. So in my mind that's a fair gauge for territorial advantage as well. I don't care what most kickers can and can't do.

Otherwise what do y'all typically look for in a territorial advantage gain, 30m?...almost 1/3rd the length of the pitch+ for basically invulnerability and a do-over if you do make a mistake sounds like a lot to me.

 

[Decorily]

When a penalty infringement occurs, the non-offending team is entitled to 10-meters free of opposition. That always is true, not based on what-ifs.

What if.......the penalty is on the 5m line??

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Sure they can but doesn't mean they would when they take that kick. As I previously stated, 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.

When a penalty infringement occurs, the non-offending team is entitled to 10-meters free of opposition. That always is true, not based on what-ifs. So in my mind that's a fair gauge for territorial advantage as well. I don't care what most kickers can and can't do.

Otherwise what do y'all typically look for in a territorial advantage gain, 30m?...almost 1/3rd the length of the pitch+ for basically invulnerability and a do-over if you do make a mistake sounds like a lot to me.

I'd say your way out of line with the generally accepted definitions. I'd suggest you speak to someone higher up the food chain. You're going to annoy a lot of people calling penalty advantage over after 10 metres.

 

[jdeagro]

I'd say your way out of line with the generally accepted definitions. I'd suggest you speak to someone higher up the food chain. You're going to annoy a lot of people calling penalty advantage over after 10 metres.

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

I'm pretty sure I've presented a reasonable and logical argument on what I think is fair, even if it's not the best answer on what it should be.

I'll reflect on it though (as previously mentioned) and I'm open to alternatives. 20m even sounds fine to me if it was the accepted standard. But I'm not a fan of going by an ambiguous guideline and I think 40m is too much free space to be invulnerable for.

 

[jdeagro]

What if.......the penalty is on the 5m line??

That was discussed already in this thread and I believe the general consensus is that's not enough distance to be able to gain a territorial advantage. I agree with that thought.

 

[crossref]

I think 40m is too much free space to be invulnerable for.

I don't get that? Can you elaborate?

 

[jdeagro]

I don't get that? Can you elaborate?

I think 40m of basically free play would be too long a distance to automatically be allowed for advantage, just because a kicker can drill the ball that far if they took a penalty kick to touch instead.

With advantage you basically can do what you want and if you screw up you get a redo. With the penalty kick, you get one shot to not mess up, you don't get a redo. So to compare them is apples and oranges, slightly.

Advantage is definitely the better of the two if the ref is generous enough to allow for as much distance to be gained to be considered territorial advantageous as a kick for touch. Just for the very nature of being allowed to make mistakes and getting a redo.

Therefore, I think 40m is actually a bit of a ridiculous amount to allow for a territorial advantage - as Marc seems to be ok with.

 

[didds]

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

what if they ALREADY had 3 v 1 before the penalty award ?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

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

I'm pretty sure I've presented a reasonable and logical argument on what I think is fair, even if it's not the best answer on what it should be.

I'll reflect on it though (as previously mentioned) and I'm open to alternatives. 20m even sounds fine to me if it was the accepted standard. But I'm not a fan of going by an ambiguous guideline and I think 40m is too much free space to be invulnerable for.

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.

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

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

 

[Marc Wakeham]

What people do not like is referees who play an endless advantage when nothing is, really there, in the hope of an advantage appearing like magic.
trying to either keep the penalty count down or trying to look good.

The question to ask is "what is a REASONABLE expectation from a scrum / PK?" If the team gets that then it is advantage over. Tactical is far harder to assess.

 

[didds]

What people do not like is referees who play an endless advantage when nothing is, really there, in the hope of an advantage appearing like magic.

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!