That was the original discussion brought by crossref yes. But when you replied to me, my original point (and discussion with Dickie E) was outside that discussion and in regards to us as refs on how we should be able to play advantage objectively and quantifiably (for territorial advantage), IMO. I believe advantage should have a measurable standard and not be subjectified by the current ref of the match, leading to a variance in how the law is applied game to game.
But isn't that the reality of the game? Each match the; fixture, location, pitch, team, skill set and weather conditions are different.
I remember a 0-0 game as a school kid, top of the M62, over the Pennines wind howling along the pitch and being stuck on our goal line as we didn't have the ability to kick, we tried it went dead. Our options were to run, scrum and maul our way forward and when we changed ends the other team had a similar problem. Both teams could defend so we just slogged it out but no tries.
Turn the pitch through 90 degrees and it changes the outcome.
Get a very fast winger who can do 100m sharpish in a bit of space and that might change the outcome but not if the referee is coming back to apply the criteria for advantage he was playing last week because he hasn't seen the little whippet winger with the ball, forwards have been having a love fest, and he peeps just as the lad is getting into his stride departing the 22m.
Meanwhile back in the rarefied air of the elite game; world class 9/10 combo see you with your arm out and decide not to play as they know you are unlikely to give them 20/30/40 yards advantage if they tap and go and want the no-advantage call. You peep and said world class 10 then puts penalty kick either touch in goal or through in goal to go dead. Does this adjust the perception of the likely outcome for future events?