PK Advantages

[didds]

Throw away most of the variables, idk. Could you please jog my memory on some of them?

well one straight off the top of my head is 30m territory and an oppo lineout (tackjled into touch) - when your own lineout isn't functioning .

(which brings its own connotaions...)

 

[BikingBud]

You're missing the point. While BikingBud may see the scenario as too much cake, next week's ref may not. How are the teams to know this? "Play to the whistle etc" doesn't really help

If you have advised before kick off and find you have a team that is unwilling to play, then not really sure what else you can advise. Lots of peeping?

We went through this on the other thread:

Advantage:​

a. May be tactical. The non-offending team is free to play the ball as they wish.​

b. May be territorial. Play has moved towards the offending team’s dead-ball line.​

c. May be a combination of tactical and territorial.​

d. Must be clear and real. A mere opportunity to gain an advantage is not sufficient.​

It says they MUST have CLEAR and REAL advantage.

It doesn't say they must score!

So at some point between the first offence and the referee stopping play there are a number of possibilities. Observing and managing play in accordance with the 4 clauses above does not to me seem too onerous and is in line with many other decisions that are made during the match that are dependent upon the speed, skills, ability and attitude of the players that are participating in that match.

And I'm actually surprised we have got to a situation where it is assumed they have the right to score! So maybe we are seeing a change.

 

[crossref]

And I'm actually surprised we have got to a situation where it is assumed they have the right to score! So maybe we are seeing a change.

i suspect we are seeing a change - but it's one of those important changes WR make from time to time without really telling anyone (
do they make it up as they go along?)

I'll be watching for it now in the rest of the season - interested in any examples other people see, and observations of what difference it makes in practice - positive or negative.

(If indeed it is a thing)

 

[jdeagro]

well one straight off the top of my head is 30m territory and an oppo lineout (tackjled into touch) - when your own lineout isn't functioning .

(which brings its own connotaions...)

Sorry I don't follow what this has to do with advantage. Could you please elaborate?

 

[tim White]

Calling advantage over brings clarity. Not calling advantage over leaves doubt. (or the ref is still waiting because you might gain an advantage).

I've seen both, I prefer the calling of advantage over. Most teams I have watched seem to manage either way.

 

[didds]

I'm with CR.
but does that equate to a PK on one's own 5m line must be a score until their own error or dead ball brings them back

Sorry I don't follow what this has to do with advantage. Could you please elaborate?

errr... PK advantage. Winger makes a break, runs 30m past the point of PK, tackled into touch. His/her team have had a rubbish lineout all game.
Is that advantage? 30m isnt really that much,territory and now the oppo have the ball to throw in , let alone against a rubbish lineout.

???

 

[RemainingInTheGame]

I only ref Juniors, so open play advantage is generally not a problem to decide on, acknowledging that my work on is to call no advantage sooner if I am confident nothing will eventuate (and I always call over verbally).

But, with the variance in set piece, and kicker quality when there is a dead ball before advantage over and it’s not clear to me what is better for them, then I’ll give the captain options and let them decide.

 

[Dickie E]

But, with the variance in set piece, and kicker quality when there is a dead ball before advantage over and it’s not clear to me what is better for them, then I’ll give the captain options and let them decide.

How do you do that?

 

[Dickie E]

Calling advantage over brings clarity. Not calling advantage over leaves doubt. (or the ref is still waiting because you might gain an advantage).

I've seen both, I prefer the calling of advantage over. Most teams I have watched seem to manage either way.

I have never experienced a referee not calling "advantage over" unless its to come back for the infringement. Is that common in UK?

 

[Dickie E]

And I'm actually surprised we have got to a situation where it is assumed they have the right to score! So maybe we are seeing a change.

it isn't so much a right to score. It is that, given kickers' ability to kick PGs from anywhere in their opponents' half, it is difficult to judge any other outcome (other than a score) as being of equal or greater advantage than the penalty.

 

[jdeagro]

errr... PK advantage. Winger makes a break, runs 30m past the point of PK, tackled into touch. His/her team have had a rubbish lineout all game.
Is that advantage? 30m isnt really that much,territory and now the oppo have the ball to throw in , let alone against a rubbish lineout.

???

Well the biggest part I disagree with in that example is it shouldn't matter how that team's lineouts have been all game. That's on them to sort out. The ref shouldn't cater to a team's varying deficiencies each game. Advantage being gained should be objective, and it starts becoming subjective if the ref bases it on those kind of variables, IMO.

Right now, some would argue that 30m of a break away is both a territorial and tactical advantage too, with the current state of subjectivity around advantage.

 

[jdeagro]

I have never experienced a referee not calling "advantage over" unless its to come back for the infringement. Is that common in UK?

I'd say it's pretty common communication where I play in the States as well. And I think it's good communication IMO.

 

[RemainingInTheGame]

How do you do that?

Sorry not well explained.

If I am still playing advantage, and something happens that causes a stoppage but I'm not sure if it's better or worse- I'll ask the captain what he wants.

One instance I recall was U13s playing PK advantage for offside on a ruck in middle of pitch in their own 22. The team with advantage made about 15m before being tackled into touch.

I asked the captain if he wanted penalty in centre or the lineout with opposition throw.

(They picked penalty, kicked for about 10m and then lost the lineout).

Basically I hadn't called advantage over, and was unsure if they had advantage, so gave the captain an option.

Maybe not the best way to do it going forward, but felt OK at the time.

 

[didds]

I'm with CR.
but does that equate to a PK on one's own 5m line must be a score until their own error or dead ball brings them back to it?

 

[crossref]

I'm with CR.
but does that equate to a PK on one's own 5m line must be a score until their own error or dead ball brings them back to it?

This is a great example of a PK where (in this new regime) if the ref starts playing adv, the team is best advised to stop playing and take the kick.

If they play on there is a severe risk that the ref calls adv over when they are (say) 30m upfield , and haven't actually got any advantage, and would have preferred the kick, making maybe 30/40m and with good lineout possession

 

[BikingBud]

i suspect we are seeing a change - but it's one of those important changes WR make from time to time without really telling anyone (
do they make it up as they go along?)

I'll be watching for it now in the rest of the season - interested in any examples other people see, and observations of what difference it makes in practice - positive or negative.

(If indeed it is a thing)

Have WR changed anything? Or are you surmising there is something going on behind?

As I have offered there is plenty of scope to apply advantage in many ways, it maybe the style of referee that you are but for me it's in the same bucket as being hard on offside, when defending as well as persistently being in front of the kickers, or allowing squint throws at both line outs and scrums and one you mentioned earlier judging when a tackle might become a maul.

Some refs will appear not to have noticed the infraction but are just allowing the game to flow a little, to let the players decide their fate before coming back. Others may even go to the extent of "coaching" teams to prevent offences. But we should be teaching kids from a very young age to keep playing until directed otherwise because the ref may not be playing advantage for something you feel is wrong, they may have missed it altogether.

I do not recollect any law change or additional direction that was given when deliberate knock on was determined to be a cardable offence or in some cases a penalty try, it was just evolution led by showcase refs. Perhaps the tide change in what I feel has been excessive leeway for advantage may just be another of those evolutionary changes.

 

[BikingBud]

This is a great example of a PK where (in this new regime) if the ref starts playing adv, the team is best advised to stop playing and take the kick.

If they play on there is a severe risk that the ref calls adv over when they are (say) 30m upfield , and haven't actually got any advantage, and would have preferred the kick, making maybe 30/40m and with good lineout possession

I don't see a new regime but find this approach really stifles the game, restricting enterprise and flair.

An offence 5m out in the centre of the park, perhaps ball spilt forward but you call for an illegal clear out by the attacking team (blue). Lively red scrum half realises that the attackers have over committed and there is a large blind side with 4v2, they pick and set off, they make it to just shy of the 10m line before being tackled by the blue winger from the opposing side of the pitch catches them. They can recycle with relative ease as the blue players are all lazy running and play back across the park to score, all sounds good to me.

Or they get another advantage, as the lazy runners interfere, now 30 m down field they decide to keep the tempo high kick this to touch and set up for an attacking line out with blue players all hanging out and unable to compete at the line out or defend effectively.

Or you blow because you feel advantage might not accrue and the 10 shanks it, and doesn't make it halfway to the 22m and have a defending line out under pressure.

Clearly there are many shades in between and how it pans out will influence if and where or indeed when you might call "Adv over" but why not let players play?

It is the basis of the game!

 

[crossref]

Have WR changed anything? Or are you surmising there is something going on behind?

See post #1 !

Yes, I think I have detected a change at elite level.
Of course it could just be coincidence, but I have noticed PK "adv over" more times in the last two months than probably in the previous ten years.

PK Adv over has traditionally been vanishingly rare at elite level .. (unless they score of course), but suddenly we are seeing it

I am wondering
1 is this coincidence or is it indeed a thing?.. let's keep our eyes open and watch for it !
2 if it is a thing, what impacts will it have, positive and/or negative

 

[didds]

Well the biggest part I disagree with in that example is it shouldn't matter how that team's lineouts have been all game. That's on them to sort out. The ref shouldn't cater to a team's varying deficiencies each game. Advantage being gained should be objective, and it starts becoming subjective if the ref bases it on those kind of variables, IMO.

Right now, some would argue that 30m of a break away is both a territorial and tactical advantage too, with the current state of subjectivity around advantage.

I thought the discussion though was about whether a TEAM had considered what they got was "advantage" gained? Hence they may eschew ANY attempt at using "advantage" as they may end up in a scenario that THEY didnt consider to be advantageous.? Giving away a lineout throw when they have a carp lineout and only 30m of territory gained THEY may consider not advantageous.

Isnt that what we were discussing?

 

[jdeagro]

I thought the discussion though was about whether a TEAM had considered what they got was "advantage" gained? Hence they may eschew ANY attempt at using "advantage" as they may end up in a scenario that THEY didnt consider to be advantageous.? Giving away a lineout throw when they have a carp lineout and only 30m of territory gained THEY may consider not advantageous.

Isnt that what we were discussing?

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.