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.
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?
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.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 PKNo.
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.
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.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).
Advantage can be both Tactical and Territorial, but in the example you can't have the latter without the former.
I'm done now.
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.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.
What if.......the penalty is on the 5m line??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.
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.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.
In my experiences I've found a lot of people annoyed and confused why refs run varying amounts and long distances of advantage.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.
What if.......the penalty is on the 5m line??
I don't get that? Can you elaborate?I think 40m is too much free space to be invulnerable for.
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.I don't get that? Can you elaborate?
what if they ALREADY had 3 v 1 before the penalty award ?Advantage can be tactical OR territorial.
They have gained a tactical advantage by having 3 players against 1.
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.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.
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!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.