France - Argentina: advantage (?) in the last 5 minutes

[talbazar]

Hi All,

The last 5 minutes of the France Argentina game last Saturday saw France hammering Argentina's line while the later displayed an awesome defense.
You can see it here, from 1:54:00 on the video's timeline:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAv83Dps7c4

The sequence is roughly as follow:
- Line Out for FR, 20 out (left)
- Ruck, PK Advantage FR, 10 m out (on the left)
- Ruck, PK Advantage FR, 5 m out (slightly on the right)
- FR is pushed back, no advantage, PK
- FR Line-out 10 m out (on the right)
- Ruck, PK against ARG 5 m out (slightly on the right)
- PK plays by hand by FR
- PK Adv for FR 5 m out in front of the post
- FR plays and #15 ends up held-up in in-goal
- No try, end of the game

Question is simple:
with the overall flow of PK and the physiognomy of these last 5 minutes, do you think these 5 m were enough of an advantage or could have Clancy come back to the PK?

In other words, what would you have done?

To be fair to Clancy, coming back to the PK is a big call: FR are 5 points behind and it's already a good 3 minutes extra time...

Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[The Fat]

For me it is advantage over.
If I'm playing advantage and the attacking team move the ball forward 5, 10 or 15 metres, if they manage to cross the goal line with ball in hand, that is advantage over in my books. There will probably be others here who disagree with that approach but playing advantage inside or near the 22 doesn't mean that the attacking team MUST score.
I have had games where similar things have happened as per the OP and will call loudly as the attacker looks like he is about to cross the goal line, "Advantage over".


Just going over your sequence, there is a balancing act to consider if you are the French captain. Multiple infringements in the red zone by Argentina. Time is up and you need a try to have a chance of winning the game so quick taps are the only way to continue. At what point do you stop and allow everyone to reset in the hope that the referee will produce a YC so that you have a numerical advantage from the next tap kick.
It sounds like the ref has no opportunity to produce a YC because France keep going quickly.

Similar thing happened in Bledisloe III in 2010??? in Hong Kong. Wallabies attacking, time is up, multiple infringements near the goal line by ABs but Alain Roland has no chance to issue a YC which would have given Aus a numerical advantage because the Wallabies kept taking quick taps. In that game it worked out well for the Wallabies. This time it didn't for France.

 

[crossref]

For me it is advantage over.
If I'm playing advantage and the attacking team move the ball forward 5, 10 or 15 metres, if they manage to cross the goal line with ball in hand, that is advantage over in my books. There will probably be others here who disagree with that approach but playing advantage inside or near the 22 doesn't mean that the attacking team MUST score.
I have had games where similar things have happened as per the OP and will call loudly as the attacker looks like he is about to cross the goal line, "Advantage over".

If a team are awarded a PK 5 metres from the posts, then that's a *certain* 3 points. How can anything other than a score be called an advantage?

 

[The Fat]

If a team are awarded a PK 5 metres from the posts, then that's a *certain* 3 points. How can anything other than a score be called an advantage?

So let them take the kick.
Three points were of no use to France and they chose to play the ball as they wished.
What are you going to do, allow them to keep playing until they score a try?

 

[Dickie E]

I think Clancy got it right

 

[crossref]

(they key bit is from 82:20 on the game clock)

I don't see how you can say France ever got an advantage. Why not : no advantage, back to PK (and a YC as well seeing as this was three (or four?) in a row metres from the line)

 

[The Fat]

(they key bit is from 82:20 on the game clock)

I don't see how you can say France ever got an advantage. Why not : no advantage, back to PK (and a YC as well seeing as this was three (or four?) in a row metres from the line)

Your video has disappeared.
There is a PK for the Pumas player stepping over the ruck and interfering with the French SH.
At this point, I agree, Clancey had the option of issuing a YC but didn't.
Was there another PK advantage between when the quick tap is taken for this infringement and when the French 15 goes over the goal line?

Scenario:
Same as what happened in the France v Argentina game except that let's say the French #15 goes over the goal line unopposed but in the course of attempting to ground the ball, he loses control of it and it goes forward. Would you still want to come back to the previous penalty advantage?

 

[crossref]

my link didn't work. -Talbazar's link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAv83Dps7c4 but that lets you watch the last three minutes or so.

The key bit is all from 82min onwards - maybe this will work
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAv83Dps7c4&feature=player_detailpage#t=7089

yes there is a fresh offence that is never penalised

82:35 - Clancy signals a PK advantage to France, right in front of the posts
82:44 - France go over the try line --- and are held up.

Game over.

I thnk he should have come back for a PK and a YC (yes indeed he could have given a YC even earlier)

Same as what happened in the France v Argentina game except that let's say the French #15 goes over the goal line unopposed but in the course of attempting to ground the ball, he loses control of it and it goes forward. Would you still want to come back to the previous penalty advantage?

In general terms when playing a PK advantage to green, and green knock on, it's entirely normal to come back for the PK. So why not ? (Given the position of the PK offence, just nine seconds earlier)

 

[Dickie E]

I thnk he should have come back for a PK

Agree. I think he lost the plot at the end.

 

[didds]

It seems to me the real question is what wod have been awarded had the same action taken place further downfield and the knock on occurred in an attempt to break the line unopposed otherwise to score? I understand that the actual goal line is different from say the half way line, but in the interests of trying to get soem consitejcy in calls...

WRT the quick taps, I didn't get the impression they were taken because there was an overlap to be exploited... they were just a way to get the game going again quickly as opposed to a scrum. Stopping the game and time off to YC then restart (with a tap presumably) wouldnt actually lose any tactical advantage to the attackers at the time, though I can see there may be a loss of "momentum" with the down time, hopefully overcome with the man advantage?

didds

 

[crossref]

It seems to me the real question is what wod have been awarded had the same action taken place further downfield and the knock on occurred in an attempt to break the line unopposed otherwise to score? I understand that the actual goal line is different from say the half way line, but in the interests of trying to get soem consitejcy in calls...

WRT the quick taps, I didn't get the impression they were taken because there was an overlap to be exploited... they were just a way to get the game going again quickly as opposed to a scrum. Stopping the game and time off to YC then restart (with a tap presumably) wouldnt actually lose any tactical advantage to the attackers at the time, though I can see there may be a loss of "momentum" with the down time, hopefully overcome with the man advantage?

didds

I get what you are saying about momentum - but it's a close call isn't it: would the french rather take their tap facing a more-organised 14 man defence or a less-ready 15 man one ?

 

[Adam]

I can't believe he didn't go to the TMO!

 

[talbazar]

I get what you are saying about momentum - but it's a close call isn't it: would the french rather take their tap facing a more-organised 14 man defence or a less-ready 15 man one ?

France didn't take the quick tap. They actually waited a while...
YC could have been an option, but as I didn't see the full game, hard to tell...

I can't believe he didn't go to the TMO!

I'm actually ok with that. The AR is well positioned, GC checked with him, they made a team decision: good on them (and I believe they got it right...


Thanks a lot to all who shared their views. I needed to read all that: I'm only French :biggrin: :france:

 

[didds]

I get what you are saying about momentum - but it's a close call isn't it: would the french rather take their tap facing a more-organised 14 man defence or a less-ready 15 man one ?

That is indeed the rub CR, agreed.

didds

 

[crossref]

another factor is
- take them down to 14 and they are presuambly very loath to offend again, with the threat of becoming 13
- leave then at 15 ....why not commit another offence, if he's not going to YC us.

 

[Browner]

I can't believe he didn't go to the TMO!

SW jumped in & appeared to confirm 'held up' opinion, & we know TMO's are a reluctant usage for him.

 

[didds]

another factor is
- take them down to 14 and they are presuambly very loath to offend again, with the threat of becoming 13.

Do refs actually do this though? See the quesry/point I made in the Scotland v Tonga thread.

didds