Advantage?

[OB..]

Advantage.... 2 v 1, irregardless of proximity of goal line in 7's should be gained advantage. IMHO

Red (6 players) have scrum in Blue 22. The two backs are split. Blue have 2 on 1 on one side.

Scrum infringement and Blue 9 grabs ball. Do you call the 2 on 1 advantage over now? Do you wait until the ball is passed? Do you wait until the ball is caught?

I distrust automatic calls. Trust your judgement. Sometimes it will be "wrong". That's how you get better. You build a mental portfolio.

 

[jboulet4648]

SEVENS FORUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If Red has 6 players in a scrum in Sevens, I would have a problem with that, and yes advantage over since there would be an overlap on one whole side of the field.

 

[OB..]

My question was the precise point at which you call advantage over.

This is not really a Sevens question, but a general quetion on when it is best to call advantage over.

 

[jboulet4648]

The game is different hence the way you play advantage is different.

Yes it is situation specific, but in sevens (SEVENS ONLY), when there is a 2 on 1, on a LARGE field, once you have the overlap, yes advantage is over.

In 15's there are more variables.

 

[OB..]

Red are attacking, but lose the ball forward. Blue player gathers it but before he can pass to the open man outside him, he is tackled and loses the ball forward.

Blue did have the ball and the overlap, but no opportunity to use it.

What if Blue threw a pass in such a hurry to avoid the tackle that it went forward?

 

[Davet]

I too distrust automatic rules of thumb. Each case must be judged on its merits.

My comment was aimed at the situation where the 2 on 1 was in potentia - if the pass had gone to hand then it it would have been real - my interpretation of what happened was it didn't so it wasn't.

Which is why every case MUST be judged on its merits.

 

[jboulet4648]

Red are attacking, but lose the ball forward. Blue player gathers it but before he can pass to the open man outside him, he is tackled and loses the ball forward.

Blue did have the ball and the overlap, but no opportunity to use it.

What if Blue threw a pass in such a hurry to avoid the tackle that it went forward?

Okay you have me. YOU WIN. :clap: If you want to think of every possible situation where I am wrong in saying a 2 v 1 is advantage over, go ahead, I concede. All I was saying general rule, a 2 on 1 in sevens is advantage over. Yes there will be occassions where it doesn't pan out that way. It is irrelevant to the initial question I asked, which pertained to a player being taken out. It doesn't matter, I am done with this post.

 

[SimonSmith]

There is a general acceptance on the board that each case must be judged on its own merits.

That still allows us to make general statements of principle: I agree with Judah, based on what I read. 2 v 1 in a wide pitch in 7s IS advantage, unless there is a factor that would me make not call it - opposition too close to prevent use of the advantage.

I think, to make a wider point, that there are general principles that I apply to my game. I think I can best sum them up as my default positions: I will <insert statement here> unless <reason to not do it>.

 

[OB..]

judah - this isn't a contest. It's an effort to get agreement.

In this case the tricky decision is when a potential advantage becomes a real advantage. I would expect a 2 on 1 to give a massive advantage, but I would still wait to see it first.

 

[Dickie E]

You emphatically can NOT card a captain for another player's offence. If that went to a disciplinary hearing it would get laughed out.

There is no legal or indeed moral basis for that course of action, and as Judah has said, risks undermining whatever credibility you might have with the players.

If you missed it, you missed it. Don't make someone else pay the price for that!

This is a bit interesting.

I would think that there is plenty of precedence (both legal & moral) for this course of action. Doesn't a military commander have responsibility for the action of his troops and is subject to court martial if they misbehave?

I kind of like the idea of binning the captain if I can't find out who the miscreant is.

Maybe we should apply the old school room strategy. "If the miscreant doesn't own up now you can all spend 10 minutes in the bin."

 

[OB..]

Dickie E - if you missed it, how can you be sure there was a foul, or that you are blaming the right team? What if the captain genuinely does not know who did what?

Would a military commander be responsible for soldiers who committed murder? No. That happened when I was in Hong Kong. Some drunk soldiers refused to pay a taxi drivers and ended up killing him.

Tempting though it may be on occasion, hard cases make bad law.

 

[SimonSmith]

If anyone can justify binning the captain in these circumstances, with a law citation, I'm all ears. Or eyes. But you get my point!

 

[Dickie E]

OB, there's plenty of occasions when a ref or TJ sees foul play but doesn't get a number - stomping in the middle of a ruck for instance.

I just think its an interesting concept for the team leader (aka skipper) to take responsibility for the action of his charges.

In Australia under OHS legislation a Manager carries the can if one of his employees commits an OHS offence.

 

[OB..]

Dickie E - you are telling me that if an employee commits an OHS offence, expressly forbidden by his boss, and the boss cannot identify the individual, the boss is guilty? That seems contrary to natural justice.

 

[Dickie E]

basically, yes and being able to identify the individual only shares the blame.

A boss has the obligation to provide a "safe system of work". If he doesn't do that, even by negligence of an employee, then he is guilty. There is even talk of introducing culpable manslaughter charges for bosses (in extreme cases, of course).

Maybe a captain, by taking on the authority & responsibility for leadership, should carry some of the blame if things go wrong. Just a thought.

We hold a "club" accountable if their spectators misbehave, don't we? Or can tranferred responsibility only be to an entity, not an individual?

 

[Davet]

OHS? Wots one of those, then

 

[SimonSmith]

Probably Occupational Health and Safety.

ANd it's a red herring. I'm sure that managers are protected from the liability of aberrant behavior.

Again - if anyone can justify it in law, then there is perhaps a discussion to be entered into!

 

[OB..]

I remember a case where a worker was injured using a machine from which he had removed the safety guard. Apparently that made it easier to use the machine. The boss was held partly liable because he should have installed a safety device that could not be easily removed.

I still find it difficult to believe a person could/should be held liable for things over which they have no control eg a worker deliberately contravening the law (perhaps in order to get at the boss?!). I can understand a compensation culture holding an organisation liable in order to get money out of them, but personal liability seems odd.

 

[Bryan]

If you can't spot the offender but see the offence, I am a firm believer that the captain needs to be brought out and spoken to about the offence. However, under no circumstances would I feel justified in specifically carding him.

We often talk about poor captain selection and how it can ruin the relationship between the referee and the team. Has anyone ever refereed a match where the captains were great, but their teams were a bunch of tossers? The captain tries to warn his team, but they continue to be indisciplined. What use is there in binning the captain if he is the only one that buys into what you are saying?

It's all good saying the buck stops at the captain and he/she has to take ultimate responsibility, but I'd rather keep them on the pitch.

 

[Dickie E]

Probably Occupational Health and Safety.

ANd it's a red herring. I'm sure that managers are protected from the liability of aberrant behavior.

Again - if anyone can justify it in law, then there is perhaps a discussion to be entered into!

what you are sure of and what is reality are not necessarily the same thing.

Here's another red herring. Don't government ministers sometimes resign because of aberrant behaviour in their departments? Some American said something about the buck stopping here.