Advantage an entitlement to score?

[Pedro]

So what's better than a good chance of 3 points?
Current practice is a definite 5 points

This is the crux of it for me: Advantage has to be > the "chance" of 3 points. So in this situation I would be looking at:

• A better chance at 3 points i.e. penalty closer to the centre of the field. (Can offer options of original penalty or second)
• A penalty closer to the try line (Can offer options)
• A try
• A Scrum on or around the 5m line (Can offer options)
• A Line-out on the 5m line (potentially, with some caveats)

 

[BikingBud]

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?

You might call it but if on the first pass they drop it perhaps due to pressure of defenders in front of them how was it real, where is the territorial advantage?

Wholly different to attacking from outside the 22 and getting to the open try line and then dropping the ball.

 

[didds]

This is the crux of it for me: Advantage has to be > the "chance" of 3 points. So in this situation I would be looking at:
...

• A Line-out on the 5m line (potentially, with some caveats)

But a pk award offers that option anyway in effect to the non offending side, unless that's the caveat you meant

 

[smeagol]

What has been coached into me (by current NP and former international referees) is that if the offense occurs inside the defending 22, either the attackers score or bring it back.

When to bring it back is a matter of whether the attackers are on the front foot; if it's stalling then bring it back.

 

[BikingBud]

This is the crux of it for me: Advantage has to be > the "chance" of 3 points. So in this situation I would be looking at:

• A better chance at 3 points i.e. penalty closer to the centre of the field. (Can offer options of original penalty or second)
• A penalty closer to the try line (Can offer options)
• A try
• A Scrum on or around the 5m line (Can offer options)
• A Line-out on the 5m line (potentially, with some caveats)

From anywhere, so inside their own half and pinned against the touch line? Or with caveats about the position on the park perhaps in a D shape similar to that in hockey.

What has been coached into me (by current NP and former international referees) is that if the offense occurs inside the defending 22, either the attackers score or bring it back.

When to bring it back is a matter of whether the attackers are on the front foot; if it's stalling then bring it back.

I reiterate it was outside the defenders 22 and the attack only failed to realise points because the non-offending team didn't exploit the very real and clear advantage they had due their poor skills.

It seems I am out on my own here,the consensus is that isn't as written but is an entitlement.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

It is something to be weighed in context. If a side butchers a simple running by throwing on needless pass that a player drops when the passer had merely to touch the ball down then I'm not going back for the penalty. But in other circumstances I will go back.

Everythng has to be viewed in context.

 

[Dickie E]

It is something to be weighed in context. If a side butchers a simple running by throwing on needless pass that a player drops when the passer had merely to touch the ball down then I'm not going back for the penalty. But in other circumstances I will go back.

Everythng has to be viewed in context.

Gee, I've never heard of an advantage being called over based on the referee's assessment of a team's competence.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Gee, I've never heard of an advantage being called over based on the referee's assessment of a team's competence.

I had a game a few years ago where a Team A were getting hammered in every scrum and losing everyone even their own put in.
Skipper says to me ref I don't care if they knock on please look for advantage we do not want scrums and I agreed with him.
Team A on a rare attack have a line out 10 metres from try line , Team B knocks on in line, I signal advantage A and Team B kick ball deep down to Team As 22.
Everyone basically stops waiting for the whistle.
Team A's fullback gathers the ball, I shout advantage over. He runs length of field and scores.
Decision totally based on a teams competence to compete in scrum

 

[Rich_NL]

It seems I am out on my own here,the consensus is that isn't as written but is an entitlement.

As written, it's a referee's judgement. You judge that advantage is over, you call it that way.

Referees generally try to aim for consistency, and at higher level it's demanded. So they have to align their judgements, by considering cases like these. If at top (inter)national level they agree to judge a situation in a way, that will be disseminated - also so that teams know what to expect and how to train. This aligned and communicated judgement could be seen as an entitlement, but it's also as written in law, as the referee now knows how to judge a situation.

Materiality is also not written in law, but applied fairly universally. And yet where and when it applies is pretty well standard, and you can consider that a team is entitled to have a winger offside if it's 50m from play and there's no effect on the flow of the game; if a team had a try chalked off for a non-material technical offence like that there'd be uproar and a dressing-down for the ref.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Gee, I've never heard of an advantage being called over based on the referee's assessment of a team's competence.

They had a clear and obvious advantage the fact they then butcher it is not my fault.

 

[Dickie E]

They had a clear and obvious advantage the fact they then butcher it is not my fault.

No, it's not your fault but "butcher" is a very subjective term and creates a very slippery slope

 

[Marc Wakeham]

No, it's not your fault but "butcher" is a very subjective term and creates a very slippery slope

You have the "right" to an advantage if the overlap has been created you have your advantage. What a team does with the advantge is up to them. Mess it up and it is their problem.

 

[Decorily]

You have the "right" to an advantage if the overlap has been created you have your advantage. What a team does with the advantge is up to them. Mess it up and it is their problem.

So if from a mark 10m out in front of the posts a team go wide, have an overlap, but fail to score are you calling advantage over?

 

[SimonSmith]

So if from a mark 10m out in front of the posts a team go wide, have an overlap, but fail to score are you calling advantage over?

I'd differentiate between actions of the opposition and the actions of the ball carriers.

To counter point your argument, non offending team goes left, 3 on 0 on that side, go through hands and then the last man drops it, would you not say that they had had their advantage to use the ball as they wished?

 

[Decorily]

To counter point your argument, non offending team goes left, 3 on 0 on that side, go through hands and then the last man drops it, would you not say that they had had their advantage to use the ball as they wished?

No....I would say they had an opportunity to gain an advantage but none was gained and for me the reason none was gained is irrelevant.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

So if from a mark 10m out in front of the posts a team go wide, have an overlap, but fail to score are you calling advantage over?

If they've worked the ball so a man has a clear run to the line unopposed. YES in spades. They have an advantage. not a mere opportunity to gain one. It could not be more clear or obvious.

 

[BikingBud]

No....I would say they had an opportunity to gain an advantage but none was gained and for me the reason none was gained is irrelevant.

They had a very real opportunity to score without opposition, that appears to be a very advantageous position to be in.

 

[BikingBud]

No, it's not your fault but "butcher" is a very subjective term and creates a very slippery slope

But it does, I feel, cover appropriately the squandered opportunity that frequently occurs and could justifiably indicate that advantage was present and real, not just an opportunity, and that it had expired.

 

[Decorily]

Y

They had a very real opportunity to score without opposition, that appears to be a very advantageous position to be in.

Yes I totally agree...they had an OPPORTUNITY to score/gain advantage but they didn't.
Wheras the law book clearly states that an opportunity is not good enough!

 

[BikingBud]

Yes I totally agree...they had an OPPORTUNITY to score/gain advantage but they didn't.
Wheras the law book clearly states that an opportunity is not good enough!

No it doesn't.

You did quote it correctly in Post 10, but to reiterate the Law says:

7.1 d. Must be clear and real. A mere opportunity to gain an advantage is not sufficient

Mere - used to emphasize how small or insignificant someone or something is.

If you were to put a probability on mere where would you pitch it <30% or perhaps even <20% whereas the actual events as unfolding you might expect >80%, >90% of professional players to score.

Remember there was no tackle that dislodged the ball, it was a straightforward catch and touch down, I would actually expect >95% with the extremely rare exception being someone trying to be a clever arse and swallow dive or such like.

Further the Advantage Law doesn't say opportunity to score, it says it might be tactical or territorial, they are two distinctly different outcomes:

• So they had a tactical advantage as they had a 3 v 0 overlap, very real and significant. Total freedom to execute whatever they may have wished.
• They had territorial advantage as they were atop the try line and needed to cover no more ground to score the try, just bend and place.

And neither of those terms are qualified by scoring and conversely should not be denied by not scoring.

So being at the try line with no opponents in front of the attacking players is not a small or insignificant advantage. Hence the ref should call advantage over.