Another advantage question

[kaypeegee]

An incident in this weekends Munster Perpignan H-Cup sparked an interesting debate between myself and my recently ELRA 1/2 qualified 16 yo son :clap:.

Referee JP Doyle was playing penalty advantage to red for a ruck offence 22m out near the right touchline. Red attempts a cross-field kick to the far corner post. White winger takes the ball in the air and is then "tackled" in the air by red winger. JPD comes back for the original offence.

For those who haven't seen the game the tackle-in-the air wasn't that bad and in open play would probably have been a penalty and a "word" with the offender.

Debate centred around when would a subsequent penalty offence by the "advantaged" side supercede the original decision.

FWIW my opinion was that the advantage that the "advantaged" team has does not make them immune from sanction for penalties during the advantage. So if for example someone from the "advantaged" team punches an opponent on the nose, the penalty for the punch would be given (along with :yellowr :rc: as appropriate).

So I suggested that unless it was a "serious" offence (i.e. YC/RC offence) I would probably come back for the original penalty.

I haven't seen any guidance on this so would welcome other views.

 

[Dickie E]

For me, only 10.4 (dangerous play & misconduct) offences would trump during a period of advantage. Not sure if that is defined anywhere.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

8.5 More than one infringement



(a)


When there is more than one infringement by the same team:

•If advantage cannot be applied to the second offence the referee applies the appropriate sanction to the first offence.
•If advantage is played for the second offence but none accrues, the referee applies the appropriate sanction for the second offence.
•If either sanction is for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction for that offence.

This covers it doesn't it?

 

[leaguerefaus]

8.5 More than one infringement



(a)


When there is more than one infringement by the same team:

•If advantage cannot be applied to the second offence the referee applies the appropriate sanction to the first offence.
•If advantage is played for the second offence but none accrues, the referee applies the appropriate sanction for the second offence.
•If either sanction is for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction for that offence.

This covers it doesn't it?

In the example, White commit the first offence, Red commit the second. So I would take a wild stab in the dark that 'more than one infringement by the SAME TEAM' may not apply

 

[Rushforth]

I'm only IRB1 (= ELRA1, I believe) qualified myself.

Safety > continuity of play + fair contest > laws.

At my level, it is more important to me that safety comes first EVERY time, and thus red would not get a "get-out-of-jail-free" card for the potentially dangerous act of tackling-in-the-air.

That said, ruck offences - and I haven't seen the incident, let alone the game - range from irrelevant offsides to hands-in to stamping. Clearly the last of these was not the case.

It certainly wasn't a case of retaliation, as I understand it, so not automatic, but I would weigh the safety aspect more heavily than the original (technical) offence.

 

[kaypeegee]

No. Offences were by different teams!

 

[crossref]

if white commit an offence, then clearly it can't be the case that red have a licence to commit any act of foul play they like, unpunished, for as long as the advantage lasts.

Of course you can penalise Red for foul play if they deserve it.

 

[tim White]

Tackled in the air sounds like serious enough foul play for me to sanction this event and not play advantage. :shrug:

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

8.5 More than one infringement



(a)


When there is more than one infringement by the same team:

•If advantage cannot be applied to the second offence the referee applies the appropriate sanction to the first offence.
•If advantage is played for the second offence but none accrues, the referee applies the appropriate sanction for the second offence.
•If either sanction is for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction for that offence.

This covers it doesn't it?

Sorry for the post. DNA,

Sounds like we as refs need to be quicker on the whistle when advantage is over. In this case,advantage may have been over as soon as it became apparent white could catch the ball. Of course, I'm guessing and did not see actual play.

 

[Browner]

As you won't be playing advantage from a prior act of foul play, any subsequent act of foul play by the side seeking the advantage means they've lost the opportunity.

Ultimately not committing dangerous acts / foul play is the 'Law standard' for play continuing.

 

[beckett50]

It depends.

The (2nd) offence, as described, could have been quite serious and, in isolation, sounds as if that may be the case. However, it could be that both players went for the ball and the attacking player played the defending player who caught the ball whilst both feet were off the ground. An offence? Perhaps.

I would suggest that in this case (and I didn't see the game) JPD saw there was no offence and that - as the defending player had won the ball - there was no advantage forthcoming and so came back for the original infringement.

To answer your question directly, an offence that is contrary to the good conduct of the game - punch, stamp, dangerous tackle etc - may cause me to overturn the original advantage.

I'm sure we have all had situations where we have overturned an advantage due to a serious misdemeanour. I offer the following example, of tackler not rolling away from a tackle (advantage being played and vocally advised) and team mate of tackled player stamps on the tackler!

Hope this helps

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

You could "reverse the penalty" perhaps but it isn't a great look in the case of the OP running across the whole width of the pitch (and then back) to do it?

 

[kaypeegee]

Hope this helps

Yes. Many thanks.

 

[Dickie E]

To answer your question directly, an offence that is contrary to the good conduct of the game - punch, stamp, dangerous tackle etc -

neatly bundled in 10.4

 

[Dickie E]

if white commit an offence, then clearly it can't be the case that red have a licence to commit any act of foul play they like, unpunished, for as long as the advantage lasts.

Of course you can penalise Red for foul play if they deserve it.

I would avoid using the term 'foul play' as their are a number of Law 10 offences that would not justify a reversal.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

A similar event occured in our Grand Final replay where I was AR. The ref had called advantage for Green for a not rolling (I think) by Blue and had played several phases. Blue had held tight and Green 8 was tackled with a slight loss of territory and knocked on in the process of being tackled - held by legs by Blue 9, but didn't go to ground). Ref whistled for the first infringement and as was moving back towards the spot for the PK, Green 8 (having recovered the ball) tried to leg drive out of the tackle, blue 9 went to ground still holding on and Green 8 jumped up and lashed out with his foot towards to the blue player. No contact as the blue player saw it coming and evaded, but to me (and the Green coach who I spoke with after the match) clearly an attempt to stomp or kick the blue players head.

I flagged and reported it and gave a recommendation that it was a PK offence (as ref had no view of the incident), but no card as no contact. The ref agreed with the recommendation and reversed the penalty with a bollocking to G9.

When I spoke with the ref after the match we both felt that the blatant attempt by G9 to kick/stomp far outweighed the minor ruck offence and as such, deserved a loss of possession to the green team. As an aside, I felt that the trust from this ref (many have the opinion that he ignores AR's and TJ's) on such a call shows the importance of frank and clear communication within the To3 and working in these teams through out the year.

 

[chbg]

In this case the ball was dead ("Ref had whistled for the first infringement") and therefore should be sanctioned under 10.4? As seems to have been the case: the PK to Blue was effectively awarded where Green would have re-started play.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

Action was as the ref whistled. The whole KO/drive/kicj thing happened in about 3 seconds. Line ball as to whether the ball was "dead" when the lash out occurred, only just dead if it was. Ref committed a sin in turning his back as he whistled, but he got away with it this time!