Wrong call?

[didds]

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.

which is why in these sort of circumstances I've long advocated (regular readers may look away now ;-) a "lineout penalty advantage" call, so that the game doesn't stop just so a side with PK advantage that have cleared nicely don;t have to go back to kick again (and maybe not kick as well!) purely so they can get the throw.

Such a call could let the game flow without the kicking team losing the throw in benefit.

True, it could lead to far more line kicking from PK advantage, but it seems acceptable (including by me!) for teams to have a hopeful DK option with a likelihood of still getting the kickable PK if the DG misses.

didds

 

[DocY]

At first reading this sounds a good idea, but I think it would complicate advantage and teams would start to play for it.

Sure, if they're playing advantage for a ruck offence and one of the half backs makes a good clearing kick I can understand it (though the 10 could be 10m further back), but I'd expect teams to quite quickly start trying to make 10-15m (IMO probably not advantage over), then kick to touch. I don't think this would be a good thing.

 

[crossref]

which is why in these sort of circumstances I've long advocated (regular readers may look away now ;-) a "lineout penalty advantage" call, so that the game doesn't stop just so a side with PK advantage that have cleared nicely don;t have to go back to kick again (and maybe not kick as well!) purely so they can get the throw.

Such a call could let the game flow without the kicking team losing the throw in benefit.

True, it could lead to far more line kicking from PK advantage, but it seems acceptable (including by me!) for teams to have a hopeful DK option with a likelihood of still getting the kickable PK if the DG misses.

didds

so if you are playing a PK advantage to Blue, Blue can simply kick for touch and keep the throw in.

yes, to me that sounds like an idea worth trialling.

 

[didds]

so if you are playing a PK advantage to Blue, Blue can simply kick for touch and keep the throw in.

yes, to me that sounds like an idea worth trialling.

That's it CR indeed.

Saves the daftness of playing advantage, long kick, players chase, ball goes into touch... everybody comes back for the PK award and kick for touch.

It could either be ref's choice, OR a "line-out or kick again" option to skipper. Not fussed either way, though I can see the latter could be abused to run the clock down I suppose.


didds

 

[chbg]

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?

You were, of course, already taking the uncontested scrums into account in your assessment of when Advantage would be over; weren't you?

It is for the referee to decide whether to offer options to the non-offending skipper, not for them to ask you. Though, having had the question once, you may well take that into account in future.

 

[ianh5979]

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?

Surely he could of opted for the scrum from the place of the penalty if he really wanted a scrum especially as the knock on was only a few metres ahead of where the penalty occured

 

[crossref]

If it happened again, I think I would ask the captain what he wanted.. .

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

re lineout-penalty-advantage thing suggestion...

If a team make some ground (but not enough for advantage to be adjudged over - say 20m) then kick 40m downfield they are then 60m better off with a throw in, rather than being 40m forward (assume the same distance kick for simplicity). Not sure I would be fully comfortable with that - seems like "too much" of a benefit? - but in fairness I guess it would the same for both teams so. Just feels like they are getting two bites of the cherry to some extent.

Maybe would just take some getting used to.

 

[didds]

its a work in progress... maybe the caveat - keeping it simple - is that the kick has to be within a phase or two of the illegality and without the gain line being breached already.

didds