[Law] Penalty best position !

[RobLev]

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

In the OP the original PK offence was on the 22m line, 5m in. The second PK was 15m out - that is, the attacking side have gained a grand total of 7m. In all the discussions on RR about what constitutes sufficient advantage to call PK advantage over, no-one has ever suggested that gaining 7m is enough.

That being the case, is it really reasonable to interpret "new advantage" as including "advantage over"- when that interpretation relies on the referee having made a law error?

 

[Staffs_Ref]

In the OP the original PK offence was on the 22m line, 5m in. The second PK was 15m out - that is, the attacking side have gained a grand total of 7m. In all the discussions on RR about what constitutes sufficient advantage to call PK advantage over, no-one has ever suggested that gaining 7m is enough.

That being the case, is it really reasonable to interpret "new advantage" as including "advantage over"- when that interpretation relies on the referee having made a law error?

A perfectly valid question and it is certainly debatable whether the referee was right to call a new advantage in that situation ... but the fact is that original post states that he does, so that is the scenario that was being discussed.

 

[RobLev]

A perfectly valid question and it is certainly debatable whether the referee was right to call a new advantage in that situation ... but the fact is that original post states that he does, so that is the scenario that was being discussed.

My point was different - it is that it is debatable whether his calling a new advantage should in that situation be intepreted as meaning that the original advantage was over.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

My point was different - it is that it is debatable whether his calling a new advantage should in that situation be intepreted as meaning that the original advantage was over.

Well as has already been identified on this thread, that is the crux of the matter. You won't find an explicit answer in the law book and you won't find universal agreement on this forum. I and others have said why we believe "new advantage" equates to "advantage over" for the previous advantage. Counter opinion has been raised by others. Take your pick!

 

[crossref]

Well as has already been identified on this thread, that is the crux of the matter. You won't find an explicit answer in the law book and you won't find universal agreement on this forum. I and others have said why we believe "new advantage" equates to "advantage over" for the previous advantage. Counter opinion has been raised by others. Take your pick!

I think you are self-imposing a restriction on yourself that you don't need to.
- In the heat of the game you are making a split second judgement that the second offence is more advantageous than the first.
- A few seconds later no adv has been gained and you stop play
- and the team prefer to go back to the first one

I don't see why you want to bind yourself to that split second judgement, a judgement you didn't really need to even make.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

I think you are self-imposing a restriction on yourself that you don't need to.
- In the heat of the game you are making a split second judgement that the second offence is more advantageous than the first.
- A few seconds later no adv has been gained and you stop play
- and the team prefer to go back to the first one

I don't see why you want to bind yourself to that split second judgement, a judgement you didn't really need to even make.

I'm not going to repeat answers that I have already given. There is grass growing in the garden that I can go and watch instead. :biggrin:

 

[crossref]

fair enough

 

[OB..]

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?

Advantage close to the line implies a score, so you will never be able call "New advantage" in such a situation, given that for you it must include deciding advantage for the previous offence is over.

I find that an unnecessarily restrictive usage.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

Advantage close to the line implies a score, so you will never be able call "New advantage" in such a situation, given that for you it must include deciding advantage for the previous offence is over.

I find that an unnecessarily restrictive usage.

Why? As you rightly say, 'At that range it is hard to see anything other than a score as sufficient advantage' so there is unlikely to be any requirement to call "new advantage".
(i) The attacking team scores - advantage over.
(ii) The defending team commits a further infringement that you either penalise immediately or allow to "roll forward" under the existing "live advantage" as no improved advantage applies.
(iii) The attacking team infringes, so you go back to the mark for the existing "live" advantage.
(iv) The defending team lawfully rebuffs further attacking attempts and no advantage materialises, so you go back to the mark for the existing "live" advantage you were already playing.

Where is the issue, pray tell?

 

[OB..]

Why? As you rightly say, 'At that range it is hard to see anything other than a score as sufficient advantage' so there is unlikely to be any requirement to call "new advantage".
(i) The attacking team scores - advantage over.
(ii) The defending team commits a further infringement that you either penalise immediately or allow to "roll forward" under the existing "live advantage" as no improved advantage applies.
(iii) The attacking team infringes, so you go back to the mark for the existing "live" advantage.
(iv) The defending team lawfully rebuffs further attacking attempts and no advantage materialises, so you go back to the mark for the existing "live" advantage you were already playing.

Where is the issue, pray tell?

If you can call "new advantage" without killing the previous one, then calling it alerts the defenders to the fact that a third offence will almost certainly lead to a yellow card.

There is also the problem that the referee has decided which situation is most advantageous for the attackers.

In other situations it may be clear that no advantage has accrued from the first offence, but still be realistic to allow for it at the second offence.

Overall taking the view that "New advantage" does not equal advantage over is much more flexible.

 

[DocY]

Why? As you rightly say, 'At that range it is hard to see anything other than a score as sufficient advantage' so there is unlikely to be any requirement to call "new advantage".
(i) The attacking team scores - advantage over.
(ii) The defending team commits a further infringement that you either penalise immediately or allow to "roll forward" under the existing "live advantage" as no improved advantage applies.
(iii) The attacking team infringes, so you go back to the mark for the existing "live" advantage.
(iv) The defending team lawfully rebuffs further attacking attempts and no advantage materialises, so you go back to the mark for the existing "live" advantage you were already playing.

Where is the issue, pray tell?

I suspect the players are a better judge than I am, of what the best advantage is - and where the 'best penalty' is may well change as play progresses.

For example:
the defending team offend twice (both 5m from their line), once in front of the posts, once close to the touch line (for whatever reason, you decide the penalty in front of the posts is better and you'll go back to that one), advantage is being played and there's a ruck between the two penalties where (due to an attacking infringement) the ball squirts out towards the touch line and ends up close to the touch line penalty.
Suddenly the touchline penalty becomes very preferable, whereas if the ball were stuck in the ruck the posts penalty would be.

It might be a bit contrived, but in a case such as this I would not like to be prescriptive about which penalty I'm going to give them.

 

[Staffs_Ref]

Overall taking the view that "New advantage" does not equal advantage over is much more flexible.

I disagree. It is just much more messy.

 

[DocY]

TBH, on a practical level I'd find Staff's interpretation easier: remembering the details of a single infringement is often hard enough!

 

[Staffs_Ref]

It might be a bit contrived, but in a case such as this I would not like to be prescriptive about which penalty I'm going to give them.

In that situation, I quite agree. If you are playing advantage and then blow for a further penalty offence elsewhere, I would be quite happy for the captain to choose to go back to the mark for the "live" advantage that was being played.Crossref put a similar scenario forward earlier in the thread when I said I wouldn't be prescriptive.

It is considerably more complicated if there have been a series of "new advantages" called before play finally comes to a stop. Are you really going to offer the captain a choice of the four or five advantages you have called? Can you remember where they all were? In the video clip relating to this specific thread the referee goes to the incorrect place for the previous penalty he had called (too far forward) and he only had to remember one penalty incident ... What chance with four or five?

 

[Staffs_Ref]

TBH, on a practical level I'd find Staff's interpretation easier: remembering the details of a single infringement is often hard enough!

Precisely! If I had seen this sooner I wouldn't have had to type that longer response that I just posted! :smile:

 

[OB..]

TBH, on a practical level I'd find Staff's interpretation easier: remembering the details of a single infringement is often hard enough!

Easier for the referee, worse for the players. I know whose side I am on.

 

[Pinky]

In that situation, I quite agree. If you are playing advantage and then blow for a further penalty offence elsewhere, I would be quite happy for the captain to choose to go back to the mark for the "live" advantage that was being played.Crossref put a similar scenario forward earlier in the thread when I said I wouldn't be prescriptive.

It is considerably more complicated if there have been a series of "new advantages" called before play finally comes to a stop. Are you really going to offer the captain a choice of the four or five advantages you have called? Can you remember where they all were? In the video clip relating to this specific thread the referee goes to the incorrect place for the previous penalty he had called (too far forward) and he only had to remember one penalty incident ... What chance with four or five?

For me calling "new advantage" is part of game management, signalling another infringement that you have seen and would penalise were it not for advantage. As you note above, would you offer the non-offending team choice of 4 or 5 advantages? Probably not, but if I had called "new advantage" 4 or 5 times I would almost certainly be going to bin one of the defenders when play eventually stops!

 

[beckett50]

For me calling "new advantage" is part of game management, signalling another infringement that you have seen and would penalise were it not for advantage. As you note above, would you offer the non-offending team choice of 4 or 5 advantages? Probably not, but if I had called "new advantage" 4 or 5 times I would almost certainly be going to bin one of the defenders when play eventually stops!

Rather than "New Advantage" why not just say "2nd Penalty Advantage" then 3rd etc.? Easy to keep track of the run of play and in your own mind trigger if a YC is worthy