[Law] Penalty best position !

[Staffs_Ref]

- when the second offence occurs, let's say no adv is possible and you blow immediately.

- you are then in a position where you could give either offence - your choice. Presumably you give the most advatageous.

- the ball is dead, would you object to the non-offending team asking please could they have the other one.

I'd have no objection to that (providing I hadn't called "advantage over" when I blew up for the second infringement) as the original advantage I was playing would still be "live".

 

[DocY]

they almost always will want the PK.
award the PK

1 time in a 100 when they say 'can we have that other scrum instead?' give them the scrum instead.

Good point

 

[OB..]

1 time in a 100 when they say 'can we have that other scrum instead?' give them the scrum instead.

It is indeed an unusual situation. i wonder how many captains will know they could ask? Very few, I suspect, particularly if most referees just award the second PK without comment.

I don't understand this reluctance to ask the captain. After all it is the players' game, not ours.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

It is indeed an unusual situation. i wonder how many captains will know they could ask? Very few, I suspect, particularly if most referees just award the second PK without comment.

I don't understand this reluctance to ask the captain. After all it is the players' game, not ours.

Until the proposed law trial comes into effect in the northern hemisphere then it is not currently an option in law. Even under the new law trial it will remain as being essentially the referee's call, but with the option for him to ask the captain's view if he wishes to.

'8.1 (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.'

 

[Pegleg]

I think that an offence can occur whilst advantage is still "on". If so then yes go back to the first offence if that seems right. Going past a second offence runs the risk of things gettign out of hand. I would be asking if 3 or 4 offences have occured if advantage is really on or we are just playing "let's hope" there is a chance of something. I'd be looking at blowing at the second offence and making a call.

Should we be offering the captain the call as to whether or not the first or second penalty is the one to call? It has the potential to go pear shaped and the referee is the sole judge and all that.

 

[OB..]

Until the proposed law trial comes into effect in the northern hemisphere then it is not currently an option in law.

The wording in the 2015 law book is identical, so it is currently an option.

Even under the new law trial it will remain as being essentially the referee's call, but with the option for him to ask the captain's view if he wishes to.

Not specified in the law, so we need a ruling.

'8.1 (a) The referee is the sole judge of when a team has gained an advantage. The referee has wide discretion when making decisions. The referee may consult with the team captain in deciding which the greater advantage to his team is.'

The 2015 law book does not contain the final sentence.

Not that it makes any difference here. The referee has used his wide discretion to decide there was no advantage. What is now under consideration is which of two possible awards is most advantageous to the non-offending team. Asking them seems to me to be the obvious way of finding out.

 

[Pegleg]

The original question is based on whether or not advantage from the first offence has been called as over or not.

If advantage is "OVER" the first penalty is dead. We don't go back at when advantage is over.


If we are still playing advantage then we can go back at anytime UNTIL be call it over.

To decide if the referee was right or wrong we need to know was he still playing advantage.

Whilst strictly it is not in law to offer the captain the choice as to whether the new penalty is considered advantage or not, I can see it being a reasonable and understandable application of law to take his opinion into account. However, I have no issue with those who prefer to keep it tidy and observe law 8.1 ADVANTAGE IN PRACTICE
(a) The referee is sole judge of whether or not a team has gained an advantage. The referee has wide discretion when making decisions.

I guess it depends on how you interpret the second sentence. doe "wide discretion" equal "he may consult with players"? Hmmm Law 6.A.7. (e) The referee must not consult with any other persons, anyone?

 

[OB..]

8.1 ADVANTAGE IN PRACTICE
(a) The referee is sole judge of whether or not a team has gained an advantage. The referee has wide discretion when making decisions.

Unless we take the view that calling "new advantage" automatically implies "Advantage over" for the first offence (I reject that idea), the referee has decided that no advantage has accrued from either offence. This provision therefore does not apply. The question is simply which offence is more advantageous to the non-offending team.

Law 6.A.7. (e) The referee must not consult with any other persons, anyone?

Clearly this is not a blanket provision, since some laws require him to ask theplayers.

However as usual, I do not think scrying the entrails of the law is the right approach. What makes the best rugby sense? To me it is clear that asking the captain is the sensible approach, so unless it is clearly forbidden by law (it isn't), we should do so.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

Unless we take the view that calling "new advantage" automatically implies "Advantage over" for the first offence (I reject that idea)

This is at the crux of this whole discussion and it seems apparent that there is not going to be a consensus as to which is right. Yourself and some others clearly don't believe that calling "new advantage" simultaneously conveys the message that the previous advantage is over, whereas the likes of Pegleg, Phil E and myself do believe that to be the case.

 

[Phil E]

This is at the crux of this whole discussion and it seems apparent that there is not going to be a consensus as to which is right. Yourself and some others clearly don't believe that calling "new advantage" simultaneously conveys the message that the previous advantage is over, whereas the likes of Pegleg, Phil E and myself do believe that to be the case.

I am starting to wonder if my position (as stated above) is correct.

I think it is...., think of this.

Penalty advantage being played.
Then scrum advantage being played (new advantage, but the original penalty advantage is still live).
Then we progress to the point that the scrum advantage is over, but the first penalty advantage is still alive.
Then there might be another penalty advantage.
(This may be an unlikely event, but I am trying to illustrate a point)

Convention and assessors require us to announce loudly when advantage is over.

Are we now in a position where I have to say "scrum advantage over, but penalty advantage still alive"; or "second advantage over, first and third advantage still alive". We obviously can't do what we normally do which is to shout "advantage over" as that would lead everyone to think all the advantages are over. And shouting "advantage over, still advantage" makes no sense.

This is why "New Advantage" would signify the old advantage is over (I am sure that what the players think it means); or are we saying you can never have more than one advantage alive at the same time?

 

[OB..]

This is at the crux of this whole discussion and it seems apparent that there is not going to be a consensus as to which is right. Yourself and some others clearly don't believe that calling "new advantage" simultaneously conveys the message that the previous advantage is over, whereas the likes of Pegleg, Phil E and myself do believe that to be the case.

How can it possibly be the case? it is common for the second offence to take place further from the goal line and before any referee would have said "Advantage over" for the first one. Why the determination to make an unnecessary inference? I cannot make rugby sense of it.

 

[Phil E]

How can it possibly be the case? it is common for the second offence to take place further from the goal line and before any referee would have said "Advantage over" for the first one. Why the determination to make an unnecessary inference? I cannot make rugby sense of it.

If the second offence is further from the goal line and in a worse place I would expect the referee to blow up and go back to the place of the first offence.

 

[crossref]

If the second offence is further from the goal line and in a worse place I would expect the referee to blow up and go back to the place of the first offence.

if the second offence was a ball-killing one, yes, but if the non-offending team still have the ball and are still attacking promisingly, and you want to continue to play advantage.... why not continue to play advantage from the first offence, as if the second one hadn't happened. Why should the second offence give an advantage the offenders?

 

[Staffs_Ref]

How can it possibly be the case? it is common for the second offence to take place further from the goal line and before any referee would have said "Advantage over" for the first one. Why the determination to make an unnecessary inference? I cannot make rugby sense of it.

As I have already said in previous posts on this thread, I would only call new advantage" when I observe a new infringement in a position which I believe is more advantageous than the previous "live" advantage and when the infringement is such that it does not require me to stop the game straight away and allows the opportunity for further advantage to develop. That is just common sense and game management.

 

[Pegleg]

Unless we take the view that calling "new advantage" automatically implies "Advantage over" for the first offence (I reject that idea), the referee has decided that no advantage has accrued from either offence. This provision therefore does not apply. The question is simply which offence is more advantageous to the non-offending team.

Clearly this is not a blanket provision, since some laws require him to ask theplayers.

New means the old has gone. Otherwise "Still playing advantage"

Indeed some laws require the referee to ask the player and the laws book states when that is the case. Why? Possibly because they are exceptions to the rule. So unless there is a stated exception the LAW statign "must not" is a blanket provision.

 

[Pegleg]

If the second offence is further from the goal line and in a worse place I would expect the referee to blow up and go back to the place of the first offence.

Agreed the suggestion of "wait and hope" is not what advantage is about.

 

[crossref]

Agreed the suggestion of "wait and hope" is not what advantage is about.

but if you ref rigidly like that, it means that often the offenders can prevent their oppo from getting adv from the first offence by deliberately committing a second one.

I think you are being too prescriptive about this. I don't think you want to insist on your interpetation of a slightly ambiguous Law right up to the extent of creating an unfair or unwelcome result, when an alternative (equally reasonable) interpetation gives a more equitable result.

 

[Phil E]

if the second offence was a ball-killing one, yes, but if the non-offending team still have the ball and are still attacking promisingly, and you want to continue to play advantage....

How are they likely to get any advantage if they are going backwards and ending up further from the gain line in a worse position?
How can you describe that as attacking promisingly? You are risking playing advantage for so long that you can't go back!

 

[OB..]

How are they likely to get any advantage if they are going backwards and ending up further from the gain line in a worse position?
How can you describe that as attacking promisingly? You are risking playing advantage for so long that you can't go back!

If you are claiming it is impossible, I claim you are wrong. If you merely mean unlikely, then why rule it out?

 

[Staffs_Ref]

You are risking playing advantage for so long that you can't go back!

There is no time limit on how long you, as the referee, play advantage for, other than the time limit you apply yourself when you are satisfied that no advantage is materialising from the infringement.