• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

Advantage an entitlement to score?

B

BikingBud


Referees in England
Stormers v Leicester, on the brink of half time

Stomers attacking just outside Leicester 22. Advantage given for second nibble at a jackle.

Stormers go down blind side and a sweet kick is placed and bounces nicely for the winger to catch and drop over the line.

But the winger butchers it from 2 yards out knocking on over the line.:mad:

Ref comes back for no advantage🧐

These are professional players and frequently internationals if they cannot catch why should they be given extra chances!
 
They are entitled to a clear and real advantage, not just the opportunity to gain it. I would think that in the scenario you describe going back sounds fair.
 
Would they have tried the play without advantage? Do they have a pretty good chance of 3 points if the ref doesn't play advantage?
 
I have some sympathy for BB's point.
Teams can play with complete & uncharacteristic gay abandon because they know the worst they can do is get a 3 pointer.
Its a bit like a no ball in short form cricket. Just swing the bat cos you know you can't get out
 
BikingBud said:
These are professional players and frequently internationals if they cannot catch why should they be given extra chances!
Click to expand...
well the clear analogy is ref coaching eg "hands off, six", "ball still in", "keep back blue"...

These are professional players and frequently internationals if they cannot understand the laws why should they be given extra chances!
 
didds said:
well the clear analogy is ref coaching eg "hands off, six", "ball still in", "keep back blue"...

These are professional players and frequently internationals if they cannot understand the laws why should they be given extra chances!
Click to expand...
It's called preventative refereeing and if referees didn't do it the game would be a more stop start mess than it currently is!
 
Decorily said:
They are entitled to a clear and real advantage, not just the opportunity to gain it. I would think that in the scenario you describe going back sounds fair.
Click to expand...
I feel we have been here before but:

7.1 Advantage:

a. May be tactical. The non-offending team is free to play the ball as they wish. - It was. They attacked down the wing and were not tackled.

b. May be territorial. Play has moved towards the offending team’s dead-ball line. - It was. They attacked down the wing and approached the opponents try line, being almost over the try line and were not tackled.

c. May be a combination of tactical and territorial. - See a and b above they absolutely had tactical and territorial gain.

d. Must be clear and real. A mere opportunity to gain an advantage is not sufficient - It was very real. If he had caught the ball and fallen over he would have scored but due to low skill levels he didn't. It doesn't get any clearer and "realer".

Don't get me wrong the advantage Law is the there to be fully exploited but in those 4 clauses it does not mention low skill levels and butchered try opportunities. With low skill levels empathy for the game might invite you to allow a little more advantage but they are professionals. If they didn't trust themselves to pass and catch then they could have left the ball in the ruck and "asked" the ref for the Pen.

It is akin to coaching and giving second bites of the cherry. Things that should be removed frm the top level game. The players all make the decisions and we keep getting advised that top level players are fully aware, then also ensure they are fully aware of the consequences of their choices.
 
BikingBud said:
d. Must be clear and real. A mere opportunity to gain an advantage is not sufficient

......in those 4 clauses it does not mention low skill levels and butchered try opportunities.....
Click to expand...
No but it clearly states that a "mere opportunity is not sufficient."
In my opinion this scenario posed an opportunity to gain an advantage which in your words was butchered so no real advantage was gained.
 
I like the way it works, if the defending team infringe in their own 22 the ref sticks his arm out and shouts advantage, the attacking team get the chance to do something that would otherwise be to risky. It's exciting to watch. Great to have a go if playing, and a chance for the defending team to nominate "Dick of the Day" .
 
Harry said:
I like the way it works, if the defending team infringe in their own 22 the ref sticks his arm out and shouts advantage, the attacking team get the chance to do something that would otherwise be to risky. It's exciting to watch. Great to have a go if playing, and a chance for the defending team to nominate "Dick of the Day" .
Click to expand...
It was outside the 22 it was not risky it was simple hands that you would expect any school team to score.
 
Dickie E said:
I have some sympathy for BB's point.
Teams can play with complete & uncharacteristic gay abandon because they know the worst they can do is get a 3 pointer.
Its a bit like a no ball in short form cricket. Just swing the bat cos you know you can't get out
Click to expand...
Watching these matches everyone (well, every commentator) sees a Penalty advantage as free bite of the cake and an excuse to try some spectacular/borderline/speculative play with the assumption the attackers either get points or come back for the penalty.

The only bone of contention seems to be how many phases the ref should allow before calling no advantage all calling them back for the PK. (Generally too long/short depending on commentator loyalties…]
 
Decorily said:
It's called preventative refereeing and if referees didn't do it the game would be a more stop start mess than it currently is!
Click to expand...
If pro players got pinged then carded for not knowing the laws maybe they'd learn the laws and play by them. Radical concept.
 
Decorily said:
No but it clearly states that a "mere opportunity is not sufficient."
In my opinion this scenario posed an opportunity to gain an advantage which in your words was butchered so no real advantage was gained.
Click to expand...
If you think being adjacent to the try line and only have to catch and dot it down is mere opportunity then I hate to think if you ever feel able to give a penalty try!

As open goals go they don't get any more open
 
BikingBud said:
If you think being adjacent to the try line and only have to catch and dot it down is mere opportunity then I hate to think if you ever feel able to give a penalty try!

As open goals go they don't get any more open
Click to expand...
So are you saying that if an advantage is played 5m out from the goal line and one pass is made but fumbled and knocked on that advantage should be called over?
 
didds said:
If pro players got pinged then carded for not knowing the laws maybe they'd learn the laws and play by them. Radical concept.
Click to expand...
It's not necessarily just about knowing the laws, it's also about understanding what the referees perspective is.
Most players would understand that the hindmost foot etc at a ruck is their offside line and may genuinely believe they are legally standing on it but the referee may not agree and may be of the opinion that they are in front and offside. Why wouldn't we tell them to step back so we can keep the game flowing?
 
Pre Match brief?

I will give you advantage wherever I can. Play it and use it.

I will be firm with offside lines, do not infringe as this will benefit both teams and do not expect me to keep warning you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top