RWC NZ vs Ireland.. henshaw's fluffed grounding.

[ChuckieB]

...A case of too much advantage?

 

[damo]

...A case of too much advantage?

Do you think it should have been advantage over in the micro second before he dropped it?

Maybe you are right, but that's not how advantage in the 22m is reffed in practice. PK advantage in the 22m is generally either a try/drop goal, or there is no advantage.

 

[ChuckieB]

Having seen Wayne Barnes call advantage over for something not dissimilar in a Premiership game, it's worth raising the point again.

 

[Decorily]

Maybe you are right, but that's not how advantage in the 22m is reffed in practice. PK advantage in the 22m is generally either a try/drop goal, or there is no advantage.

I'm inclined to agree...but unfortunately my last assessor had a very different view!

 

[Jz558]

I'm interested in an advantage call made by Wayne Barnes on Sunday. From a Japanese knock-on, advantage is called and with South African having won the ruck WB says to De Klerk "We'll see how good the kick is". Once it is obvious the kick is going to make touch he calls advantage over. The inference I took was that if the clearance kick had been fluffed he would have gone back to the scrum. A similar incident happened during a National L1 game I saw recently when the 10 failed to make touch from a knock-on advantage and the ref blew for the scrum as no advantage was gained. Both incidents were from stable possession at the base of a ruck which could be construed as freedom to play the ball as they wish. Just wondering how others ref this as my inclination is to call advantage over in similar circumstances.

 

[Phil E]

I'm interested in an advantage call made by Wayne Barnes on Sunday. From a Japanese knock-on, advantage is called and with South African having won the ruck WB says to De Klerk "We'll see how good the kick is". Once it is obvious the kick is going to make touch he calls advantage over. The inference I took was that if the clearance kick had been fluffed he would have gone back to the scrum. A similar incident happened during a National L1 game I saw recently when the 10 failed to make touch from a knock-on advantage and the ref blew for the scrum as no advantage was gained. Both incidents were from stable possession at the base of a ruck which could be construed as freedom to play the ball as they wish. Just wondering how others ref this as my inclination is to call advantage over in similar circumstances.

I think it was more a case of "see if he can get a good clearance kick out of choice" as opposed to " see if he has to kick under pressure and never gets the advantage".


If a clearance kick is made under pressure and not out of choice then that's not an advantage. If he fluffs it, its not his fault.

If the kicker is not under any pressure and chooses to kick the ball away then its usually advantage over as soon as he kicks it, becasue if he fluffs a kick like that its only him to blame.

 

[Jz558]

I think it was more a case of "see if he can get a good clearance kick out of choice" as opposed to " see if he has to kick under pressure and never gets the advantage".


If a clearance kick is made under pressure and not out of choice then that's not an advantage. If he fluffs it, its not his fault.

If the kicker is not under any pressure and chooses to kick the ball away then its usually advantage over as soon as he kicks it, becasue if he fluffs a kick like that its only him to blame.

That's what made me ask the question as in neither situation was the kicker under pressure, standing well back from a stable platform. Having seen it twice in quick succession I was wondering if guidance had changed.

 

[crossref]

I am seeing more examples of refs waiting to see how the kick ends up, rather than calling adv over the moment it's kicked

A small trend

As in this case, they call adv over only if the kicker manages to to make the ball dead :wink:

 

[Phil E]

I am seeing more examples of refs waiting to see how the kick ends up, rather than calling adv over the moment it's kicked

A small trend

As in this case, they call adv over only if the kicker manages to to make the ball dead :wink:

WB called the advantage over while the ball was still in flight on its way up. It might not have gone dead, but the defenders had cleared their lines and gained a territorial advantage.

 

[crossref]

WB called the advantage over while the ball was still in flight on its way up. It might not have gone dead, but the defenders had cleared their lines and gained a territorial advantage.

So, once it was kicked, adv was called over. It didn't matter whether or not the ball goes dead.

I am happy with that.

That's a principle we could apply in other circumstances, isn't it ?

:wink:

 

[Marc Wakeham]

On Saturday, the ref we had at my club called called a PK advantage over in the 22 when a 3 against 2 overlapp was butched, by a dropped pass (under no pressure).

I felt it very refreshing. They team had clearly gained a tactical advantage and poor play blew it.

 

[didds]

WB called the advantage over while the ball was still in flight on its way up. It might not have gone dead, but the defenders had cleared their lines and gained a territorial advantage.

so it wasnt for the tactical advantage of excercising tactical choice with no pressure?

didds

 

[Phil E]

so it wasnt for the tactical advantage of excercising tactical choice with no pressure?

didds

Bit of both.