Wrong call?

[JSAK]

Was watching an old game video and saw something I had not noticed during the actual game. Blue lineout a few meters outside of the Red 22. Both Red and Blue jumpers go up for the throw-in and [this is the part I had not previously noticed] Blue bats the ball out of Red’s hands and back and into Red’s 22. Red successfully recovers the ball and kicks for touch. I call it back as being taken back by Red into their own 22 and award Blue LO. During the game I had thought the Red jumper had tossed it back to his receiver not picking up on the Blue player’s action. Should have been Blue lineout where it crossed the touch line, right?

 

[didds]

presumably red advantage/scrum for knock on on the 15m line.

HAD you spotted it.

But you didn't and ruled red taken in, cleared, no ground with blue l/o - in loine with where it was kicked.

ie blue knocking it on to red is red advantage/potential scrum.

The only query then is whether red kjicking under no pressure to touch is now advantage over and blue lineout where it crossed the touchline.

didds

 

[JSAK]

Thanks didds.

The only query then is whether red kjicking under no pressure to touch is now advantage over and blue lineout where it crossed the touchline.

This occurred to me as I watched the video. I've been an AR for years but have only recently moved onto the pitch. I have difficulty with these types of advantage calls. With that said, I suspect if I was making the call today I would still award the Blue LO where the kick crossed touch. But that call would be based on my preference were I in the game.

 

[crossref]

If you see the knock on, you know that it wasn't carried back.. So they get gain in ground

 

[JSAK]

After re-reading didds' post I realized that I had neglected to say that the kick for touch landed in the FOP then bounced out, hence the Blue LO up field. Sorry for the confusion. Still the question of appropriate advantage remains.

If you see the knock on, you know that it wasn't carried back.. So they get gain in ground

Not sure I understand what you're saying. Since the Blue LO results in a Red gain of ground it would be the appropriate application of advantage? Sorry, not trying to be obtuse, but like I said, I trouble with these types of advantage calls.

 

[beckett50]

If there was a sufficient gain in ground - for what would have been a scrum OUTSIDE the 22m - then go with the kick to touch and the gain in ground as good advantage.

That is what makes the Advantage Law the best in the book; it's down to individual interpretation )

 

[Pinky]

Really depends on the kick and whether it is better to have the scrum, and presumably keep possession, as opposed to an opposition l/o up field.

 

[crossref]

After re-reading didds' post I realized that I had neglected to say that the kick for touch landed in the FOP then bounced out, hence the Blue LO up field. Sorry for the confusion. Still the question of appropriate advantage remains.



Not sure I understand what you're saying. Since the Blue LO results in a Red gain of ground it would be the appropriate application of advantage? Sorry, not trying to be obtuse, but like I said, I trouble with these types of advantage calls.

But in the OP you said
I

call it back as being taken back by Red into their own 22 and award Blue LO

Implying it was kicked out on full and you gave no gain in ground.

 

[ChrisR]

Who would offer the choice to the non-offending team? Seems like a very reasonable thing to do. Especially if the kick was less than a massive gain in ground.

"Your choice, Red. Your scrum for the Blue knock-on here or a Blue line-out there, where you kicked it to touch?"

I don't see a reason in law why not. I know that "You can't play advantage after the ball goes dead" but I don't think that is applicable.

 

[Pegleg]

The only problem I see there is opening up a debate. Efectively you are asking the Red to rule of advantage gained. You as ref are the sole judge of advantage not the players. I think you have to make the judgement call not the players.

 

[Taff]

Who would offer the choice to the non-offending team? Seems like a very reasonable thing to do. Especially if the kick was less than a massive gain in ground. "Your choice, Red. Your scrum for the Blue knock-on here or a Blue line-out there, where you kicked it to touch?" I don't see a reason in law why not. I know that "You can't play advantage after the ball goes dead" but I don't think that is applicable.

The only problem I see there is opening up a debate. Efectively you are asking the Red to rule of advantage gained. You as ref are the sole judge of advantage not the players. I think you have to make the judgement call not the players.

For what it's worth I'm inclined to agree with Merauder; in fact I've asked a captain before if they want a scrum or LO. I can't remember what they went for but I do remember it wasn't an issue. All we (as Refs) are trying to do is guess what their captain would prefer. If it's not blatantly obvious, why bother when we can ask him / her?

 

[Pegleg]

Slippery slope:


What is "blatently obvious" to one ref is not to another.

You ask what they want this week. and next week's ref does not. He gets the fall out from you making the law up.

The laws offer "options" under certain prescribed events. Advantage does not appear to be one of those.

What happens when after the kick ahead you offer options and the other side choses to exercise ITS right to a QTI?

Good luck explaining it to the assessor.

 

[tim White]

8.1 Advantage in practice
(a)
The referee is sole judge of whether or not a team has gained an advantage. The referee has wide discretion when making decisions.

Discuss.

I believe the ref has to decide because the players will choose one option then retain the right to claim the other :wtf:

 

[ChrisR]

I think there are different kinds of situations.

The usual one is when the non-infringing side gains possession of the ball and open play continues under the advantage law. At some point the referee must decide if appropriate advantage has been gained or not and will declare advantage over or whistle and apply the sanction for the infringement.

However, if the ball immediately goes (or is made) dead then some advantage may, or may not have been gained. In those situations where the advantage is not obvious I see no harm in allowing the non-offending side to have a say in it.

The precedence is already there in law. Should a knock-on go into touch the non-offenders get a choice of the restart.

 

[ChrisR]

Here is another situation.

Red kick from their own half. Blue late charge the kicker (obstructing but not dangerous). You hold your whistle (but call Red advantage) as Red wing is chasing the ball (that landed at 30m from Blue goal) with open field ahead. The ball takes a forward kick and runs into touch (big tailwind) at the Blue 5m.

Should Red get the choice of PK 30m out or Blue line-out at the 5m? Don't try to solve the puzzle based on the facts and intangibles just: Would you give them the choice?

 

[crossref]

I had a real one in a recent game.
We were playing uncontested scrums
PK advantage to blue about 40m out from red line. Blue had the ball and attacked, passing ball out
About 5-7m territory gained, still playing PK advantage, Red attempted an interception, fumbled, knocked on and regained possession.

I said no advantage gained and came back for the PK. Blue captain asked me if they could have a scrum for the knock on instead.


As background information could add that they had previously taken a couple of PK as scrums, liking the clean possession you get when uncontested.

So should I have offered an option in first place?
Having come back for the PK, should I agree to his request and have a scrum for the knock on?

 

[didds]

Here is another situation.

Red kick from their own half. Blue late charge the kicker (obstructing but not dangerous). You hold your whistle (but call Red advantage) as Red wing is chasing the ball (that landed at 30m from Blue goal) with open field ahead. The ball takes a forward kick and runs into touch (big tailwind) at the Blue 5m.

Should Red get the choice of PK 30m out or Blue line-out at the 5m? Don't try to solve the puzzle based on the facts and intangibles just: Would you give them the choice?

The ref will always surely give the pk, ss that provides option of a pk goal, or a kick to the corner area with red throw maximising the red skippers options. What skipper would swap a eg 10m lineout own throw for an oppo 5m lineoyr? (caveat: Blue haven't won a -lineout all game

 

[Rich_NL]

The ref will always surely give the pk, ss that provides option of a pk goal, or a kick to the corner area with red throw maximising the red skippers options. What skipper would swap a eg 10m lineout own throw for an oppo 5m lineoyr? (caveat: Blue haven't won a -lineout all game

A skipper with a very dominant lineout and a kicker who's concerned about the weather conditions (big gusty tailwind)? I'd assume the PK, but hope I'd remember to check.

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

Here is another situation.

Red kick from their own half. Blue late charge the kicker (obstructing but not dangerous). You hold your whistle (but call Red advantage) as Red wing is chasing the ball (that landed at 30m from Blue goal) with open field ahead. The ball takes a forward kick and runs into touch (big tailwind) at the Blue 5m.

Should Red get the choice of PK 30m out or Blue line-out at the 5m? Don't try to solve the puzzle based on the facts and intangibles just: Would you give them the choice?

PK they can kick to touch, from 30m out to get somewhere near to the 5m line should not be that taxing, and would result in their own throw in. Plus they have the scrum, tap or kick at goal options. I would always give the PK in this instance.

I was asked once by a player why I'd gone back about 40m after a good kick during a PK advantage went to touch. I explained that from the PK they would get the throw in to the following lineout but they would have ceded possession on the original kick. Player seemed happy with that.

 

[DocY]

8.1 Advantage in practice
(a)
The referee is sole judge of whether or not a team has gained an advantage. The referee has wide discretion when making decisions.

Discuss.

I believe the ref has to decide because the players will choose one option then retain the right to claim the other :wtf:

I think the "referee is the sole judge" is to stop teams claiming they hadn't had enough advantage and now they want the PK/scrum. Probably left over from when calling out "advantage over" didn't happen so much.

I heard about a game (I think it was in Ed Morrisson's book) where, after the pre-match talk, the captain asked if his team could not have any advantage and just go straight for the scrum as soon as there was an infringement.

I'm not sure this constitutes the ref being the sole judge of advantage, but I don't see too much of an issue with it (though I don't like seeing players deliberately knock-on when they want advantage, which is a bit inconsistent).

Likewise when play has to stop anyway - something like blue offside, red kick long, blue FB knocks-on - I see no issue in offering the option.