[Law] Penalty best position !

[crossref]

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!

Well, I think we all agree that this situation is pretty rare. But we are discussing what to do when it does happen.

In my reffing career I can recall only ONCE been asked by a captain, please could they have the sanction for the other offence, please.
It was unusual enough that I posted about it here.

The other example we have (above) was considered interesting enough for someone to put on youtube.

So 99% of the time it's obvious to everyone when advantage is over, and which offence (of two) you are going to give the sanction for. The questions were
- is is always the first one, or doe the ref use hi judgement and apply the best one
- if the players prefer the other one, can you give them that.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

The original question was actually whether it is right for the referee to to allow a return to the mark of a previous infringement after he has subsequently called a new advantage elsewhere.

 

[crossref]

The original question was actually whether it is right for the referee to to allow a return to the mark of a previous infringement after he has subsequently called a new advantage elsewhere.

indeed.
I think in that video the ref was quite right. He assumed, pretty reasonably, that the second offence was more advantageous than the first, but the team (surprisingly) preferred the first one. Fine.

If the ref had refused the request, and inisted on the second mark, he would be allowing the offending team to gain an advantage from their fresh offence (moving the PK to less advantagaeous place).

the point is
- normally there aren't two offences, butr sometimes there are
- normally when there are two offences you prob aren't going to be playing adv any more, but sometimes you will (see video)
- normally when there are two offence its perfectly obvious which one the non-offenders prefer - but sometimes it isnt.

In the video we see the one-in-a-thousand time when the team prefer the other mark. Well give it to them.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

indeed.
I think in that video the ref was quite right. He assumed, pretty reasonably, that the second offence was more advantageous than the first, but the team (surprisingly) preferred the first one. Fine.

I would still assert that he shouldn't have, because he had already called "new advantage" and therefore, to my mind, deemed the previous advantage to be over.

 

[crossref]

I would still assert that he shouldn't have, because he had already called "new advantage" and therefore, to my mind, deemed the previous advantage to be over.

it seems to me you are clinging, needlessly, to a rigid interpretation of the Law (in an unusual scenario) which that leads you to a bad outcome.


new advantage, shmew advantage. that doesn't have to mean advantage over. New advantage it can equally well mean 'another advantage', like 'new bike' doesn't mean that I have disposed of my old bike.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

it seems to me you are clinging, needlessly, to a rigid interpretation of the Law that leads you to a bad outcome.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[crossref]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

on rugbyrefs.com, that's not the way we roll !

 

[Phil E]

on rugbyrefs.com, that's not the way we roll !

Really? I thought we (I mean you) disagreed about a lot of things?

In the video I can't understand why they couldn't have just kicked to touch from the second mark if they wanted the lineout. They had a far better angle for it.

 

[OB..]

I would still assert that he shouldn't have, because he had already called "new advantage" and therefore, to my mind, deemed the previous advantage to be over.

That is not the only possible interpretation. It is one you have chosen. Why?

 

[Staffs_Ref]

That is not the only possible interpretation. It is one you have chosen. Why?

Because to me calling "new advantage" is simply a contraction to avoid calling the more long-winded "advantage over, new advantage".

 

[OB..]

Because to me calling "new advantage" is simply a contraction to avoid calling the more long-winded "advantage over, new advantage".

Again, that is simply your choice of interpretation. It is clear there are situations when advantage from the first offence has NOT accrued. Are you saying no referee should call advantage for the second offence in such situations?

I cannot see any benefit to the game in your interpretation.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

Again, that is simply your choice of interpretation. It is clear there are situations when advantage from the first offence has NOT accrued. Are you saying no referee should call advantage for the second offence in such situations?

I cannot see any benefit to the game in your interpretation.

This is getting silly. I am not saying that. I have told you previously on this thread that I am not saying that. Please read my responses properly.

 

[crossref]

Really? I thought we (I mean you) disagreed about a lot of things?

In the video I can't understand why they couldn't have just kicked to touch from the second mark if they wanted the lineout. They had a far better angle for it.

it was kind of a self-deprecating joke at RR.COM's expense, Phil -- we don't 'agree to disagree' .. in RR.COM we generally keep going and try and convince the other person that they are wrong.

sigh

 

[Pegleg]

This is getting silly. I am not saying that. I have told you previously on this thread that I am not saying that. Please read my responses properly.

It's a tactic often used by some on here. Misrepresent your comments to suit themselves. Quite childish really.

 

[OB..]

This is getting silly. I am not saying that. I have told you previously on this thread that I am not saying that. Please read my responses properly.

You keep repeating your view that "New advantage" necessarily implies "Advantage over" from the previous offence, but you have not explained why. I am trying to find out by asking questions.

We posit a situation where you have not deemed it appropriate to call "Advantage over" from the first offence, but then a second offence occurs, and you decide it is appropriate to call "New advantage". To me there is a conflict here. I do not see that committing a second offence constitutes advantage over.

An example would be a team attacking close to the opponents' line. You play advantage for a first offence to give the attackers another chance to score a try. A second offence then takes place much nearer the touchline. You call "New advantage", but none accrues. I take it you award the PK wide out?

 

[Staffs_Ref]

Re-read my earlier posts in the thread.

 

[crossref]

An example would be a team attacking close to the opponents' line. You play advantage for a first offence to give the attackers another chance to score a try. A second offence then takes place much nearer the touchline. You call "New advantage", but none accrues. I take it you award the PK wide out?

It's a good scenario.

I'd expect to go back to the first mark, in front of the posts, for the first penalty.

If I understand Staffs_Ref previous comments in the thread correctly, I believe he has boxed himself in, and is awarding the unkickable PK over by the touchline.

(I note that Phil_E above, does say he wonders if his position as stated is correct)

 

[OB..]

##4, 27, 49, 64, and 70 merely state your view rather than explaining it. The following give a little more information.

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.

I have never had a captain ask me if he can go back for a previous penalty infringement after I have called "new advantage" for a subsequent infringement and I think it just potentially opens up a can of worms. Theoretically, you could get a string of four or five infringements that you keep rolling forward with calls of "new advantage" until ultimately no advantage materialises and the captain then has the option of which one he wants to take. The referee then has to try to recall exactly where they all took place and what they were for. Messy at best.

(b) If I see second and / or subsequent infringements whilst I am playing advantage to the same team I will make a similar judgement as to whether that offers a more advantageous situation to them. If I believe it does then I will call "new advantage" and in so doing I deem the previous advantage to be over. As with (a), they may not always agree, but I am not going to get into a discussion over 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.

What I infer from these quotes is that you only call "New advantage" if you have decided the new offence is in a more advantageous position. In other words the call is contingent on you having decided that advantage was in fact over before you made the "New advantage" call.

If we consider the classic situation of rucks close to the goal line, this is a much more narrow concept of advantage over than you would normally use for a single offence. At that range it is hard to see anything other than a score as sufficient advantage, whereas the attacking side might well be able to benefit from the disruption caused to the defence if you allow another advantage. They would normally want to have several goes at scoring a try, whereas the defenders would be happy enough to drive them sideways and reduce the chances of them kicking a goal.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

If I understand Staffs_Ref previous comments in the thread correctly, I believe he has boxed himself in, and is awarding the unkickable PK over by the touchline.

Then you clearly haven't. :norc:

 

[Staffs_Ref]

If we consider the classic situation of rucks close to the goal line, this is a much more narrow concept of advantage over than you would normally use for a single offence. At that range it is hard to see anything other than a score as sufficient advantage, whereas the attacking side might well be able to benefit from the disruption caused to the defence if you allow another advantage. They would normally want to have several goes at scoring a try, whereas the defenders would be happy enough to drive them sideways and reduce the chances of them kicking a goal.

I don't disagree with anything in this paragraph. In what way are you suggesting this is not consistent with the approach that I am advocating?