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.
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?
Isn't the referee the sole judge of 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.it's common place to gain adv by kicking the ball dead.
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.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.
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.
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?
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?