Throw forward intercepted then no advantage

[Rich]

Hello everyone, my first post on this great forum - very new to all this so be gentle!

I have a simple question, but one that I am unsure on:

Red moving forward with ball, passes and ball goes forward, which is then caught and intercepted by blue in flight. Blue is then immediately involved in a maul which is fast going nowhere and ball is stuck.

I had initially played advantage to blue, but as it was clear that none was forthcoming, I came back for a scrum for the initial forward pass - with blue put in. Obviously felt this was the fair outcome...

Was I correct?

 

[didds]

sounds good to me.

didds

 

[Dixie]

Hello everyone, my first post on this great forum - very new to all this so be gentle!

I have a simple question, but one that I am unsure on:

Red moving forward with ball, passes and ball goes forward, which is then caught and intercepted by blue in flight. Blue is then immediately involved in a maul which is fast going nowhere and ball is stuck.

I had initially played advantage to blue, but as it was clear that none was forthcoming, I came back for a scrum for the initial forward pass - with blue put in. Obviously felt this was the fair outcome...

Was I correct?

Welcome to the forums, Rich. Nice to have you on board.

Your instincts were spot-on. Well done.

 

[Pinky]

Yes, had blue actually had an advantage over getting the scrum? ie an opportunity to play the ball the way they wanted under no more pressure than normally? If not (and in this case that seems to be the case) then go back for the scrum.

Welcome to the forum

 

[Rich]

Welcome to the forums, Rich. Nice to have you on board.

Your instincts were spot-on. Well done.

phew!!

I find myself reviewing decisions of a game in my head for a few days afterwards...trying desperately to get better, but don't yet have the confidence to be sure, as have plenty on the field who seem to have opinions, even if they are mutterer under their breaths (of course....not allowing decent on the field now would I??!).

The game was extremely tough with regards to the scrums, as they seemed to have continual problems with players being pushed up and try as I might I couldn't work out who was at fault, so ended up with lots of resets...but that's another story.

 

[damo]

As you get more experience you will get a better grasp of what constitutes an advantage.

As a rule of thumb for a newish referee I would apply something like the following:

After seeing an infringement generally take a few breaths before blowing and yell "advantage blue" (or whatever). If the infringing team has the ball the blow the whistle for the infringement.

If the non-infringing team has the ball, play on until you think that the non-infringing team would prefer to carry on playing than go back for the infringement. If play never reaches this point, or looks like it never will then blow up and go back for the infringement. In cases of foul play it is often prudent to just blow it up straight away because otherwise players may take matters into their own hands and before you know it there is an all-in brawl.

From your example, the non-infringing team got the ball, so you were correct to play advantage. Unfortunately the non-infringing team were unable to use the ball as they wished and essentially lost the ball. No captain would prefer to lose the ball in a maul to having their own feed at a scrum so you go back for the original scrum. Sounds like you got it exactly right.

 

[OB..]

If the non-infringing team has the ball, play on until you think that the non-infringing team would prefer to carry on playing than go back for the infringement.

I think it is important to distinguish penalty advantage from scrum advantage. In the first case the team could reasonably expect either to get 3 points minimum (if in range), or a good kick to touch and the throw-in at the lineout. If they punt, you wait to see if the kick is any good.

For scrum advantage, they would expect to get the ball from the scrum and the opportunity to play it but not really any gain in ground. If they kick without being pressured to do so, that is advantage over.

 

[damo]

I think it is important to distinguish penalty advantage from scrum advantage. In the first case the team could reasonably expect either to get 3 points minimum (if in range), or a good kick to touch and the throw-in at the lineout. If they punt, you wait to see if the kick is any good.

For scrum advantage, they would expect to get the ball from the scrum and the opportunity to play it but not really any gain in ground. If they kick without being pressured to do so, that is advantage over.

Yes indeed. That is implied in my 'advantage for beginners' theory, but it is good that you explicitly point it out.

 

[Dickie E]

I think it is important to distinguish penalty advantage from scrum advantage. In the first case the team could reasonably expect either to get 3 points minimum (if in range), or a good kick to touch and the throw-in at the lineout. If they punt, you wait to see if the kick is any good.

For scrum advantage, they would expect to get the ball from the scrum and the opportunity to play it but not really any gain in ground. If they kick without being pressured to do so, that is advantage over.

Similar for free kick advanatge - 1/2 way between scrum advantage & penalty advantage.

- - - Updated - - -

As you get more experience you will get a better grasp of what constitutes an advantage.

As a rule of thumb for a slightly more experienced referee I would apply something like the following:

After seeing an infringement generally take a few breaths before blowing and yell "knock on Red" (or whatever). If the infringing team has the ball the blow the whistle for the infringement.

If the non-infringing team has the ball, yell "advanatage Blue" play on until you think that the non-infringing team would prefer to carry on playing than go back for the infringement. If play never reaches this point, or looks like it never will then blow up and go back for the infringement. In cases of foul play it is often prudent to just blow it up straight away because otherwise players may take matters into their own hands and before you know it there is an all-in brawl.

From your example, the non-infringing team got the ball, so you were correct to play advantage. Unfortunately the non-infringing team were unable to use the ball as they wished and essentially lost the ball. No captain would prefer to lose the ball in a maul to having their own feed at a scrum so you go back for the original scrum. Sounds like you got it exactly right.

I offer my thoughts in red.

 

[damo]

I'm going to slightly hijack the thread with an advantage issue that I had in a game last year that I had conflicting thoughts on.

Blue v Red, Premier Colts game so full scrum rules and a pretty high standard. Blue were getting completely dicked in the scrums, to the point where they were lucky to win their own ball, and the ball they got was pretty low quality.

At a Red kickoff, Red players are in front of the kicker so I blow up for a Blue scrum. The Blue captain said to me that they would have preferred to just take the ball clearly on their 22m than have a scrum on halfway.

This got me thinking as to whether a referee should factor in the relative strengths of the teams set pieces when making a judgement call about advantage? I think probably yes, but I would be interested in hearing what the rest of the board thinks.

 

[smeagol]

I'm going to slightly hijack the thread with an advantage issue that I had in a game last year that I had conflicting thoughts on.

Blue v Red, Premier Colts game so full scrum rules and a pretty high standard. Blue were getting completely dicked in the scrums, to the point where they were lucky to win their own ball, and the ball they got was pretty low quality.

At a Red kickoff, Red players are in front of the kicker so I blow up for a Blue scrum. The Blue captain said to me that they would have preferred to just take the ball clearly on their 22m than have a scrum on halfway.

This got me thinking as to whether a referee should factor in the relative strengths of the teams set pieces when making a judgement call about advantage? I think probably yes, but I would be interested in hearing what the rest of the board thinks.

My take:

Only to the extent that a team would deliberately infringe. If a team is getting smashed in the scrums, then they should try to avoid scrum situations. Where I would draw the line is, in citing your example, Red were to deliberately be in front of the kicker every time. In that case, I would PK and escalate.

 

[Dickie E]

I agree with smeagol. It is a slippery slope to manage advantage based on your perception of teams' strengths & weaknesses. eg "I know their left winger is really fast so I'll let play go a bit longer if they run left"

 

[Dixie]

At a Red kickoff, Red players are in front of the kicker so I blow up for a Blue scrum. The Blue captain said to me that they would have preferred to just take the ball clearly on their 22m than have a scrum on halfway.

I agree with smeagol. It is a slippery slope to manage advantage based on your perception of teams' strengths & weaknesses. eg "I know their left winger is really fast so I'll let play go a bit longer if they run left"

I have sympathy with this view, BUT: I've had plenty of games where a weaker scrum have asked me to play advantage by NOT offering a scrum if possible. If they can keep possession without the scrum, even if losing a lot of ground, they'd prefer that to a 70:30 chance of losing possession at their own scrum. That seems to me to be a reasonable request - and I am happy to initiate a discussion along those lines with a captain if the circumstances arise. I think that's subtly different from playing longer advantages in the hope that the play will develop to the strength of the non-offending team. The trouble there is that sooner or later it becomes impossible to go back - and yet no real advantage has accrued.

 

[FlipFlop]

I think this is a fundamental issue for referees and understanding advantage. You need to give the team an actual advantage, and for you to judge that, you need to know the strengths of the teams.

For knock on
Fantastic scrum team - will want good clean possession, going forward, with a bit of space. This is what they get from a scrum.
Awful scrum team - if really bad, then secured possession (not just scrappy possession) - i.e. secure ruck ball. Even if lost some ground. Its better than losing the ball at a scrum!

For PKs
Team with fantastic kicker - clear gain in ground/score. Advantage will probably be either over quickly or brought back. (although depends on other strengths)
Team with awful kicker - 10m gain in ground. If really bad (thinking low level/womens) then will ignore the possible 3pts (unlikely to get it) or even possible kicks to touch if in middle of field!. Likely to give them longer to achieve advantage, but what is considered advantage is lower.

 

[OB..]

I am not that keen on trying to fine tune advantage based on your perception of a team's strengths or weaknesses. These can fluctuate even during a game. If a team expresses a preference, that may be different.

 

[Rich]

My 10 pence worth is that you shouldn't take into account the abilities of teams. If you have blown the whistle for "no advantage" then by offering up a scrum/PK then you are putting the team in a position that has an advantage to play the ball as they wish - although constructed by you - What they do after that is no longer part of the scenario, so it cannot be my problem if that team has an awful kicker and makes very little of the scrum.