[Law] Penalty best position !

[rugbyslave]

I have a question and hopefully I can explain it without the video, White have a Line-out and start a Maul, green decide to collapse the maul-- referee calls penalty advantage. Play continues across the field on the 22m line which is where the original penalty occurred 5m from touch, another penalty advantage is called 15m from the goal line in front of the posts--- No advantage accrues. The captain of white asks for the original penalty and not the one in front of the posts, he wants a line kick to get the Line-out the referee allows him to choose. ANY THOUGHTS !!!!!!

 

[Jacko]

Good management.

 

[Phil E]

I assume from the gist of the OP that "another penalty advantage is called 15m from the goal line in front of the posts" means a New Advantage was called for a second offence?

If so, you can't go back to the previous one, because by calling new advantage you are saying the advantage is over for the first offence.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

I assume from the gist of the OP that "another penalty advantage is called 15m from the goal line in front of the posts" means a New Advantage was called for a second offence?

If so, you can't go back to the previous one, because by calling new advantage you are saying the advantage is over for the first offence.

What Phil says. That would be my understanding too.

 

[rugbyslave]

Well I now had some clarity, if the penalties were reversed you would have changed the penalties to the most advantageous position for the non-offending team, so looks like it was good management.!!!

 

[Pegleg]

Once you call the second offence advantage from the first is over. You can't to go back. On a slightly different tack if, for example 3 backs were offside at a ruck I would offer the choice of which one to use as the mark if practical.

 

[crossref]

Isnt this one of the things being trialled, or due to come in next season, that the referee should apply the most advantageous Pk , and potentially give a choice

 

[The Fat]

8.5 More than one infringement


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

•If advantage cannot be played or does not accrue to the second offence, the referee applies the appropriate sanction to the offence which is most advantageous to the non-offending team.
•If either sanction is for foul play the referee applies the appropriate sanction to the offence which is most advantageous to the non-offending team. The referee may also temporarily suspend, or order off, the offending player.


(b) If advantage is being played following an infringement by one team and then the other team commit an infringement, the referee blows the whistle and applies the sanctions associated with the first infringement. If either infringement is for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction for that offence. The referee may also temporarily suspend, or order off, the offending player.

 

[Phil E]

8.5 More than one infringement
(b) If advantage is being played following an infringement by one team and then the other team commit an infringement, the referee blows the whistle and applies the sanctions associated with the first infringement. If either infringement is for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction for that offence.

What if both infringements are for foul play?

So red commit a high tackle, ref plays advantage. Blue punches red tackler.

The above says we apply the penalty to the first offence (the high tackle) not the punch???

 

[Pegleg]

All those references are to to whilst advantage is being played of if it does not accrue. My contention is that once you have called advantage over then you can't go back to the first offence.

 

[crossref]

if the first offence is a deliberate knock on by Red, the ball is gathered, adv is played, the ball is passed along the blue line -- until there is another deliberate knock on by red ....

it seems to me that if one location was clearly better than the other then whatever the Law says (and it's not the clearest wording) you could easily sell a PK at either location.

What I think is more problematic is to offer options --

 

[Pegleg]

If you call "advantage over" at 21-20 in a cup final with a minute to go and then you go back to the place of the earlier infringement to give an easier kick to the side that was a point behind. . You are goin to have a very hard time selling that to anyone except the kicker and his team.

 

[AntonyGoodman]

Looks like they are trialing something like this:

http://www.worldrugby.org/news/129899

[LAWS]8.1 “(a)” Add sentence (italics): (a) The referee is the sole judge of when ateam has gained an advantage. The referee has wide discretion whenmaking decisions. The referee may consult with the team captain indeciding which the greater advantage to his team is.The rationale can best be outlined by an example.Reds v Blacks.Red attack on Black 22, 5 metres from touch. Referee plays advantage toRed.Play moves to mid-field/some forward progress. Black infringe again, noadvantage possible, referee awards PK. Depending on the score/time, themost advantageous position for the PK may be at place of first infringement(kick to touch and line-out) OR at the place of the second infringement (kickat goal.)It seems reasonable and positive for the referee to consult with the captainin such instances[/LAWS]

 

[chbg]

If you call "advantage over" at 21-20 in a cup final with a minute to go and then you go back to the place of the earlier infringement to give an easier kick to the side that was a point behind. . You are goin to have a very hard time selling that to anyone except the kicker and his team.

Which is bazed on your contention that the OP's "another penalty advantage is called" explicitly means that 'advantage over' has been called. Actually most referees would probably call something along the lines of "penalty, advantage continues", to indicate that the next infringement has been seen, but sufficient adantage from the first infringement has not yet accrued. Law 8.5a should be applied and communicated in these instances.

However, for the time being, Law 8.1a also applies; the referee should be consistent and equitable in his decisions on whether advantage has been accrued or not. If the skipper wants the sure PK that is within reach of the touch-line, he can, by convention, communicate that he does not wish to play the advantage any further. If he plays the advantage out until the referee decides that there is none, then he should accept the referee's decision from where advantage did not accrue.

 

[Drift]

8.5 More than one infringement


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

•If advantage cannot be played or does not accrue to the second offence, the referee applies the appropriate sanction to the offence which is most advantageous to the non-offending team.
•If either sanction is for foul play the referee applies the appropriate sanction to the offence which is most advantageous to the non-offending team. The referee may also temporarily suspend, or order off, the offending player.


(b) If advantage is being played following an infringement by one team and then the other team commit an infringement, the referee blows the whistle and applies the sanctions associated with the first infringement. If either infringement is for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction for that offence. The referee may also temporarily suspend, or order off, the offending player.

This is the important line. If the team think the PK closer to the line is more advantageous to them as they want to kick for touch then that is where we are going.

 

[Pegleg]

Which is bazed on your contention that the OP's "another penalty advantage is called" explicitly means that 'advantage over' has been called. Actually most referees would probably call something along the lines of "penalty, advantage continues", to indicate that the next infringement has been seen, but sufficient adantage from the first infringement has not yet accrued. Law 8.5a should be applied and communicated in these instances.

However, for the time being, Law 8.1a also applies; the referee should be consistent and equitable in his decisions on whether advantage has been accrued or not. If the skipper wants the sure PK that is within reach of the touch-line, he can, by convention, communicate that he does not wish to play the advantage any further. If he plays the advantage out until the referee decides that there is none, then he should accept the referee's decision from where advantage did not accrue.

Totally agree. Unless you are trialing the new law. You can make a call on what is advantage or not provideded you've not called it over. Once you have done you can't go back.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

This is the important line. If the team think the PK closer to the line is more advantageous to them as they want to kick for touch then that is where we are going.

The potential issue being - as Phil E raised earlier - that the referee may well have called "New advantage" as he sees a subsequent infringement that he believes offers greater advantage to the non-offending team. Phil's assertion (which I happen to agree with) is that by calling "New Advantage" the referee is effectively communicating to both teams that advantage for the first infringement is now over and that there is a new mark where play will be potentially taken back to if necessary.

 

[Phil E]

Which is bazed on your contention that the OP's "another penalty advantage is called" explicitly means that 'advantage over' has been called. Actually most referees would probably call something along the lines of "penalty, advantage continues", to indicate that the next infringement has been seen,

I have never heard a referee call "advantage continues"...ever! At the second penalty every referee I know, at every level, calls "Penalty, new advantage".

Advantage continues and New advantage are two totally different animals.

 

[Camquin]

But if a side is two points down t the end of the match and I am playing advantage to blue for an offence in the centre of the pitch and red no8 punches someone in the 5m channel, I want to be able to card her, but I do not want to move the mark away from the 50/50 kick to a 20/80 kick - because that would allow red to benefit from foul play.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

But if a side is two points down t the end of the match and I am playing advantage to blue for an offence in the centre of the pitch and red no8 punches someone in the 5m channel, I want to be able to card her, but I do not want to move the mark away from the 50/50 kick to a 20/80 kick - because that would allow red to benefit from foul play.

You wouldn't have to. Presumably you wouldn't be calling "New advantage" when you see the punch, so you blow your whistle, stop play, manage the punching incident and then go back to the mark in the centre of the pitch where you had already announced that you were playing advantage.