• 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?

BikingBud said:
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.
Click to expand...
But where do you draw the line?
What if there was one defender? What if you'd previously observed that defender to be an incompetent tackler?
 
BikingBud said:
No it doesn't.

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


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.
Click to expand...
If that's how you interpret it then that's your prerogative and so be it.
That's not how I interpret the law.
 
Dickie E said:
But where do you draw the line?
What if there was one defender? What if you'd previously observed that defender to be an incompetent tackler?
Click to expand...
On a case by case basis. If knocked on with a defender in front where has the advantage materialised? They do not have tactical supremacy, I would expect the tackler to tackle.

If from outside the 22 and a 2v1 now 5m out and the attacking team do not use the 2v1 overload effectively, why not?

They had tactical supremacy and to flip it to the actions the defender, if they knocked the ball trying to intercept you would give a PT on the basis that a try probably would have been scored. Why. not also consider that if the ball had been caught it would probably have led to a try.
 
Decorily said:
Y

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!
Click to expand...
THe advantage law does not refere to an OPPORTUNITY to score. It referes to advantage. They are not the same thing.
 
Marc Wakeham said:
Sorry but you clearly put the two together.
I quote
"..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!"
Click to expand...
That was a direct response to BikingBud's post No37 in which he referred to an opportunity to score.
Stop trying to put words in my mouth.
 
You are saying quite clearly they had an oppertunity to score but didn't so there was no advantage. Where BB and I are saying the clear overlap was "advantage gained" and then they blew it. No score is needed for advantage to be over. Simple as that.
 
Last edited:
For balance what about the PT scenario?

If you are going to find an offence and penalise a defender on Probable, why not call advantage over on the same likelihood?

If the attacker had caught the ball a try would probably have been scored, therefore advantage over.
 
Marc Wakeham said:
You are saying quite clearly they had an oppertunity to score but didn't so there was no advantage. Where BB and I are saying the clear overlap was "advantage gained" and then they blew it. No score is needed for advantage to be over. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

Advantage may be territorial (moving towards the try line) or tactical (freedom to play as you wish - after so many phases, if nothing comes out). An overlap (behind the gain line) is an opportunity to gain one or both of these advantages. I've never seen anyone call a scrum advantage over in such a case before the gain line has been made, much less a penalty advantage.

Again, you're the referee, it's up to you when you think tactical advantage has been gained. If you call advantage over quickly, teams will stop playing adventurously and be conservative, you'll get a game of more penalty goals and fewer daring cross-kicks/overlaps/tries. At least it means you don't have to sprint as much ;)
 
Rich_NL said:
Advantage may be territorial (moving towards the try line) or tactical (freedom to play as you wish - after so many phases, if nothing comes out). An overlap (behind the gain line) is an opportunity to gain one or both of these advantages. I've never seen anyone call a scrum advantage over in such a case before the gain line has been made, much less a penalty advantage.

Again, you're the referee, it's up to you when you think tactical advantage has been gained. If you call advantage over quickly, teams will stop playing adventurously and be conservative, you'll get a game of more penalty goals and fewer daring cross-kicks/overlaps/tries. At least it means you don't have to sprint as much ;)
Click to expand...
That is not what we are saying. we are say the overlap has been gained and its an easy run in to the line. They can't have two bites of the cherry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top