[In-goal] Choice?

[thepercy]

OK, now I get it, was having a hard time imagining the scenario.

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

I think the non offending side always have the right to decline the penalty and take the tactical advantage gained.

It is generally unwise so rarely done.

Isn't the referee the sole judge of advantage?

If Red defender puts the ball into touch 5m out (instead over over his own DBL) would you allow Green to claim the lineout as his tactical advantage?

I wouldn't. I'd award the penalty, from which the attacking team have an option at the penalty to kick at goal, tap and go, scrum or kick to touch for a lineout.


If the offence had happened 50m downfield and non-offending team had kicked it all the way downfield I may have called advantage over already due to territorial advantage and therefore they would just get the lineout, not the option.

 

[Pinky]

Isn't the referee the sole judge of advantage?

Not now as options are offered to the non-offending team to choose where they want the penalty

I wouldn't. I'd award the penalty, from which the attacking team have an option at the penalty to kick at goal, tap and go, scrum or kick to touch for a lineout.


If the offence had happened 50m downfield and non-offending team had kicked it all the way downfield I may have called advantage over already due to territorial advantage and therefore they would just get the lineout, not the option.

That would apply if you had called advantage over, but given we were playing advantage from a (presumably) kickable penalty, this is a really good question. If another penalty infringement had occurred where the red 15 kicked it, then no doubt he would have had the choice. I suppose really what the question is is whether the attacking team can decline the penalty and take the "normal" restart of 5m attacking scrum. I think that would be OK, and I would not mark down a ref for this being an error in law, indeed I might laud it as really good understanding of the game and advantage (if I realised what he had done!)

 

[crossref]

Referee is the sole judge of lots of things but no poi t being pig headed about it

In the OP green put opponents under a period of sustained pressure during which red commit two pk offence , and then kick ball over own tryline.
If the captain says he is happy with that advantage gained and would like the 5m scrum it would seem very jobswrth to insist that he hadn't gained adv so had to come back 20m for a PK he doesn't want

Perhaps he has no kicker and a great scrum
Perhaps they need 5 points to win the game so 3 is no good to them

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

I don't think it's pig headed to follow what is in the law book. The laws make a provision for certain options, not for others.

Flipping your sentence on its head (maybe it's reducto ad absurdium), what if a captain decides he hasn't had enough advantage. Do you let him keep playing until he says "advantage over"? By allowing captain's the choice of when their advantage is or isn't over do you end up going down this wormhole?

As I said earlier I think a lot of this comes down to the idea of when advantage can be played and when it can't be, and when the ball is dead (which also covers the knock-on in goal leading to a 22 drop out or scrum restart debate). Could be here all day! Has this been asked to a senior lawmaker anywhere and has there been an answer?

 

[crossref]

The options are a red herring, really , it's an advantage question. If the non offending team feel advantage has been gained, then should the ref rule that it wasn't

And the dead is a red herring as well, it's common place to gain adv by kicking the ball dead.

 

[Phil E]

The options are a red herring, really , it's an advantage question. If the non offending team feel advantage has been gained, then should the ref rule that it wasn't.

The new Law 7 does not give the option for the Captain to decide when advantage is over (or not).

[LAWS]2. Advantage ends when:
a. The referee deems that the non-offending team has gained an advantage. The
referee allows play to continue; or
b. The referee deems that the non-offending team is unlikely to gain an advantage.
The referee stops the game and applies the sanction for the infringement from
which advantage was being played; or
c. The non-offending team commits an infringement before they have gained an
advantage. The referee stops the game and applies the sanction for the first
infringement. If either or both infringements are for foul play, the referee applies
the appropriate sanction(s) for the offence(s); or
d. The offending team commits a second infringement from which no advantage
can be gained. The referee stops play and applies the appropriate and more
advantageous sanction (either tactically or territorially).[/LAWS]

 

[didds]

Referee is the sole judge of lots of things but no poi t being pig headed about it

In the OP green put opponents under a period of sustained pressure during which red commit two pk offence , and then kick ball over own tryline.
If the captain says he is happy with that advantage gained and would like the 5m scrum it would seem very jobswrth to insist that he hadn't gained adv so had to come back 20m for a PK he doesn't want

Perhaps he has no kicker and a great scrum
Perhaps they need 5 points to win the game so 3 is no good to them

well presumably they'd have the option of a kick for lineout - but I totally agree with what CR says.

didds

 

[Rich_NL]

The options are a red herring, really , it's an advantage question. If the non offending team feel advantage has been gained, then should the ref rule that it wasn't

And the dead is a red herring as well, it's common place to gain adv by kicking the ball dead.

Thunderhorse raises a good point, though. In the case of a knock-on into in-goal, the 22DO is too much advantage for the defenders, so we go back for the scrum.

I think the difference is that in the case of the OP, it's not the team with the advantage killing the ball, but a play by the offending team.

 

[didds]

Maybe this just muddies the waters but what if in LLP#s #29 scenario (defender kicks throiugh and tig..]

... the first two PKs were on the attackers own 5m line and then 22m line... then they kicked long and under pressure the defender then kicks through and into TIG... I doubt very much anywone would suggest that the attackers come back for a PK on their own 22m and not get the scrum 5.

So all we are talking now is "distances" - the basic underlying concepts are the same.

Potentially the reality is that its advantage over, scrum 5. the attackers have realised a territorial or tactical advanatge.

Offering the choice merely stems from that even though it may not be written in law as such.

Safety - ENJOYMENT (nee equity) - law ?

didds

 

[Pinky]

The new Law 7 does not give the option for the Captain to decide when advantage is over (or not).

[LAWS]2. Advantage ends when:
a. The referee deems that the non-offending team has gained an advantage. The
referee allows play to continue; or
b. The referee deems that the non-offending team is unlikely to gain an advantage.
The referee stops the game and applies the sanction for the infringement from
which advantage was being played; or
c. The non-offending team commits an infringement before they have gained an
advantage. The referee stops the game and applies the sanction for the first
infringement. If either or both infringements are for foul play, the referee applies
the appropriate sanction(s) for the offence(s); or
d. The offending team commits a second infringement from which no advantage
can be gained. The referee stops play and applies the appropriate and more
advantageous sanction (either tactically or territorially).[/LAWS]

Neither did the old law 8, but we have long coached refs to tell 9s not to knock on, but to ask if they want the penalty rather than the advantage. Don't think it is any different now.

 

[Phil E]

Neither did the old law 8, but we have long coached refs to tell 9s not to knock on, but to ask if they want the penalty rather than the advantage. Don't think it is any different now.

That's deciding they don't want any advantage, which is a big difference from allowing them to decide if/when advantage starts and finishes.

 

[OB..]

it's common place to gain adv by kicking the ball dead.

It is not the fact of making the ball dead that gives the potential advantage, it is the gain made BEFORE the ball goes dead.

Thunderhorse raises a good point, though. In the case of a knock-on into in-goal, the 22DO is too much advantage for the defenders, so we go back for the scrum.

We go back for a scrum because the law was specifically changed in order to mandate that. Referees are not being asked to judge if the drop out is excessive for the offence - the law makers have decided that it is.

 

[thepercy]

If the offence had happened 50m downfield and non-offending team had kicked it all the way downfield I may have called advantage over already due to territorial advantage and therefore they would just get the lineout, not the option.

This was a PK ADV, so no matter how the ball was kicked down field, if the kicking team do not re-gather the ball, then we come back for the PK, PK ADV needs to be territorial and tactical.

 

[crossref]

This was a PK ADV, so no matter how the ball was kicked down field, if the kicking team do not re-gather the ball, then we come back for the PK, PK ADV needs to be territorial and tactical.

And if the captain considers he has got that, why deny it to him

 

[Rich_NL]

This was a PK ADV, so no matter how the ball was kicked down field, if the kicking team do not re-gather the ball, then we come back for the PK, PK ADV needs to be territorial and tactical.

Really?

 

[thepercy]

Really?

A PK gives you the opportunity to kick for territory and get possession of the ball. How is just kicking for territory and losing possession more advantageous to the non-infringing team?

 

[Elpablo73]

Why are people quoting Laws (from both 2017 or 2018 books) for the option being given when that is part of the global Laws Trials and is an addition to the advantage laws?

 

[crossref]

I don't think the law trial is relevant to this scenario, which is all about whether advantage was gained or not, and how much you pay attention to the opinion of the captain in that

 

[Rich_NL]

A PK gives you the opportunity to kick for territory and get possession of the ball. How is just kicking for territory and losing possession more advantageous to the non-infringing team?

You get to kick for territory and have a lineout for possession, it's not a given. If a lone fullback caught it with three opponents bearing down on him, I might well allow breathing room. Similarly for a fortuitous bounce, etc.