PDA

View Full Version : Wrong call?



JSAK
27-03-16, 01:03
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 Redís hands and back and into Redís 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 playerís action. Should have been Blue lineout where it crossed the touch line, right?

didds
27-03-16, 02:03
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
27-03-16, 04:03
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
27-03-16, 07:03
If you see the knock on, you know that it wasn't carried back.. So they get gain in ground

JSAK
27-03-16, 17:03
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
27-03-16, 19:03
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 :o)

Pinky
28-03-16, 02:03
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
28-03-16, 09:03
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
28-03-16, 13:03
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
28-03-16, 14:03
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
28-03-16, 16:03
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
28-03-16, 18:03
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
31-03-16, 18:03
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
01-04-16, 00:04
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
01-04-16, 00:04
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
01-04-16, 07:04
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
01-04-16, 08:04
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
01-04-16, 08:04
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
01-04-16, 08:04
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
01-04-16, 08:04
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.

didds
01-04-16, 09:04
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
01-04-16, 09:04
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
01-04-16, 09:04
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
01-04-16, 09:04
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
01-04-16, 22:04
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
02-04-16, 09:04
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
02-04-16, 10:04
If it happened again, I think I would ask the captain what he wanted.. .

Thunderhorse1986
04-04-16, 08:04
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
04-04-16, 09:04
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