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?