O
OLDDOG
Guest
Will someone more learned than me, please explain why some advantages called by the refs last for an eternity, and some for only a nanosecond or two ? :nta:
- Status
Depends on the ref's attention span.
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
Penalty advantage vs knock-on advantage. There are also country differences. The SA refs play very long penalty advantages.
waratahjesus
Greg Davis (50)
i'd like to see the knock on advantage change to when a team secures the ball. thefact that some teams have a couple of rucks and win possession but it can still go back is complete crap.
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
The advantage law has been a long standing pet hate of my at the professional level. It's manageable at the amateur level but in a professional sport its just poor. I'd like to see the TMO brought in more to rectify the situation. Using similar technology to that the NFL use to define its downs system (.i.e. the yellow line). When advantage is called a yellow line 5m ahead of the infringment or mistake appears on the TV. The team with advantage has 10 seconds to advance the ball beyond this line. If they fail they get awarded the penalty/scrum. The TMO will simply make the call to the ref whether or not advantage has been achieved in the time alotted. Furthermore, once the ball passes the advantage line its over regardless of how. If you kick it no matter the result advantage is over. Finally, penalise those who intentionally drop the ball to gain the reward. That way the game continues with too much disruption and they are forced to play on.
disco
Chilla Wilson (44)
I like the advantage rule & have always thought that depending on the infringement there should be a & maximum phase rule.
If it's just a knock on advantage then there should be a maximum 3 phases played & 5 phases for a free kick before the ref calls advantage over or blows the whistle.
If it's a penalty adavantage then the attacking team should be allowed a maximum of 10 phases before the ref calls advantage over of blows the whistle.
Just imagine how good it would be if your 20-30 metres out & your on attack with advantage knowing you've got 10 phases to work with & without fear of a turnover.
If it's just a knock on advantage then there should be a maximum 3 phases played & 5 phases for a free kick before the ref calls advantage over or blows the whistle.
If it's a penalty adavantage then the attacking team should be allowed a maximum of 10 phases before the ref calls advantage over of blows the whistle.
Just imagine how good it would be if your 20-30 metres out & your on attack with advantage knowing you've got 10 phases to work with & without fear of a turnover.
rugbysmartarse
Alan Cameron (40)
Interestingly, how would quade have felt if the words "advantage over" started coming out as the ball left his hand on the in goal cross field kick?
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
Yeah, I know. The thing is the current issues in the game stem directly from the referreeing. Many of my family are dyed in wool League fans but do try and watch Rugby. Time and time again the same issue arises in conversation. They often find it hard to follow due to the inconsistency in the rulings. The game itself in terms of what makes Rugby what it is are fine but the inconsistencies that exists in the referreeing is what turns many people away. Scrums and the advantage laws are the big ones at that.
We need to create a sense of clarity and consistently in the laws that define the rules uniformly removing the issues with individual interpretation that plague the game currently. If we want to see Rugby grow both here and abroad (at a greater rate than at present) these two main grips need to be addressed. The game will be the better for it.
The way the refs are looking at the advantage law relates directly to what the non-offending team stands to gain when the decision is made.
Scrum (eg. knock-on, forward pass): All the attacking team gains out of a scrum is a clean platform and space for their backline to operate. You generally see refs call advantage over as soon as the non-offending team have clean ruck ball, the logic being that they now have what they stood to gain from a scrum- a clean platform to launch their backs.
Penalty: This relates to their position on the field. If they are in their own half the advantage tends to be shorter and directly related to territorial gain. This is because all the non-offending side is going to do is boot the ball downfield when they are given the penalty. Once the attacking side have gained 20m the 'advantage over' call is generally made, as now they have both territory and forward momentum.
However if the penalty is in conceivable kicking range, the non-offending team stands to gain points if the penalty is awarded. So basically it will take either a try or drop goal to end the advantage, because anything less and the non-offending side is actually worse off. That is why any offence in the 22 will result in a certain penalty unless a try is scored.
It's also important to note that the advantage law refers to both a 'territorial advantage' and a 'tactical advantage'. So if a team is attacking and drops the ball, and it turns out the defending side now has the ball and a big overlap to one side, the ref's will often call advantage over before the defending side has even picked up the ball. The logic being that they now have a huge tactical advantage, and whether they use it or not is irrelevant.
And I know it sounds convaluted and I have explained it badly, but there is a lot of discussion about it in refereeing circles. That is why they are such fun guys to have at parties
Scrum (eg. knock-on, forward pass): All the attacking team gains out of a scrum is a clean platform and space for their backline to operate. You generally see refs call advantage over as soon as the non-offending team have clean ruck ball, the logic being that they now have what they stood to gain from a scrum- a clean platform to launch their backs.
Penalty: This relates to their position on the field. If they are in their own half the advantage tends to be shorter and directly related to territorial gain. This is because all the non-offending side is going to do is boot the ball downfield when they are given the penalty. Once the attacking side have gained 20m the 'advantage over' call is generally made, as now they have both territory and forward momentum.
However if the penalty is in conceivable kicking range, the non-offending team stands to gain points if the penalty is awarded. So basically it will take either a try or drop goal to end the advantage, because anything less and the non-offending side is actually worse off. That is why any offence in the 22 will result in a certain penalty unless a try is scored.
It's also important to note that the advantage law refers to both a 'territorial advantage' and a 'tactical advantage'. So if a team is attacking and drops the ball, and it turns out the defending side now has the ball and a big overlap to one side, the ref's will often call advantage over before the defending side has even picked up the ball. The logic being that they now have a huge tactical advantage, and whether they use it or not is irrelevant.
And I know it sounds convaluted and I have explained it badly, but there is a lot of discussion about it in refereeing circles. That is why they are such fun guys to have at parties
Elfster
Alex Ross (28)
And I know it sounds convaluted and I have explained it badly, but there is a lot of discussion about it in refereeing circles. That is why they are such fun guys to have at parties
As an-ex ref (too old, too slow, too fat, too confused) you make sense to me. The concept of advantage is a good thing in union, though, as with many things, the ref's discretion can cause issues. However sometimes when reffing and from the ref's perception a team can have achieved advantage from a misdemeanour - regardless what actually happens. Also I was told that from foul (or cyncical deliberate cheating) play there is no advantage...this seems to have changed recently...or else can explain a long advantage because there was always going to be a penalty.
Similar to WCR I thik there can be tweaks made though. A side with advantage should play positive Rugby with the advantage: those sides who do something to get the ref to call the penalty (drop the ball, make unreasonable attempts at field goal) should lose the advantage - they have been given advantage but have failed to use it. And that leads to another aspect of the rule and what causes confusion - just because a ref has given a side an advantage it doesn't necessarily mean that that side can use that advantage to their advantage...they could just be incompetent and blow their chances.
T
TheTruth
Guest
Simplistic I know - but advantage should be for 10 seconds only and if ball kicked then advantage over. There is just too much discretion for a Ref for him to evaluate whether the team has received ENOUGH of an advantage
Scotty
David Codey (61)
I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't know they had an advantage in the first place!
Baldric
Jim Clark (26)
The laws say that advantage must be tactical or territorial where terrtorial means gain in ground and tactical means freedom of the non-offending team to play as they wish.
Barbarian has it in a nutshell but I would like to add that for a knock on advantage, if there is no immediate advantage (ie ability by the non offending team to play the ball) then whistle it and get the scrum set. A lot of refs let this go on too long before bringing it back for a scrum.
For a penalty you would want to see more advantage or opportunity to get advantage.
he position on the firld also makes a difference. If attacking in the 22 then give them an opportunity to get the try. If defending, well blow the sucker and let them kick for touch.
Barbarian has it in a nutshell but I would like to add that for a knock on advantage, if there is no immediate advantage (ie ability by the non offending team to play the ball) then whistle it and get the scrum set. A lot of refs let this go on too long before bringing it back for a scrum.
For a penalty you would want to see more advantage or opportunity to get advantage.
he position on the firld also makes a difference. If attacking in the 22 then give them an opportunity to get the try. If defending, well blow the sucker and let them kick for touch.
L
Linus
Guest
Well done barbarian, I think you explained it beautifully.
I would add that I'm on the positive side of advantage, as it speeds up the game reducing the need for set pieces and allows a quick side to dictate the tempo and the infringing or mistake making side has continue to play. How often do you see a dropped ball (not called) in league result in a break as the players immediately switch off waiting for the referee to rule on it. Once you understand the rule that play continues you see an error or penalty as another opportunity to attack rather than stop and wait for a kick or a scrum, as the counterattack is immediately available against a broken or disorganised defensive line.
I think the issue is not the rule but more the understanding of it, and if anything there should be a longer advantage, as a scrum is not always an advantage as you have a set defensive line and a breather for a big pack, and that's where a tactical advantage can be applied.
I would add that I'm on the positive side of advantage, as it speeds up the game reducing the need for set pieces and allows a quick side to dictate the tempo and the infringing or mistake making side has continue to play. How often do you see a dropped ball (not called) in league result in a break as the players immediately switch off waiting for the referee to rule on it. Once you understand the rule that play continues you see an error or penalty as another opportunity to attack rather than stop and wait for a kick or a scrum, as the counterattack is immediately available against a broken or disorganised defensive line.
I think the issue is not the rule but more the understanding of it, and if anything there should be a longer advantage, as a scrum is not always an advantage as you have a set defensive line and a breather for a big pack, and that's where a tactical advantage can be applied.
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
Barbarian has done a very good job at explaining advantgae.
IMO advantage is actually very well referee-ed at the elite level of the game. If you understand the current philosophy on it, I think you would see very few inconsistencies. In considering changes to the advantage law or its application, you need to consider the following: the longer advantage goes on for ie the more certain you need to be that the non-offending team has achieved a gain, the more likely it is that you will go back to the scrum or penalty. This results in a lack of continuity. At the other end of the spectrum, there is greater potential that the non-offending team is required to play on when no clear advantage has been received. For mine, the game needs continuity - advantage, in general, helps to provide this and a shorter advantage or a lesser requirement to achieve advantage enhances this continuity.
I never understand why fans want to simplify the game. Surely some of the complexities like scrums, the breakdown and advantage are part of the charm of the game. A simplified version has already been created and it is League. IMO, League is a game that has great elements and entertainment value but never reaches the highs of rugby (Tri Nations 2010, Reds v Bulls or Stormers in 2010).
IMO advantage is actually very well referee-ed at the elite level of the game. If you understand the current philosophy on it, I think you would see very few inconsistencies. In considering changes to the advantage law or its application, you need to consider the following: the longer advantage goes on for ie the more certain you need to be that the non-offending team has achieved a gain, the more likely it is that you will go back to the scrum or penalty. This results in a lack of continuity. At the other end of the spectrum, there is greater potential that the non-offending team is required to play on when no clear advantage has been received. For mine, the game needs continuity - advantage, in general, helps to provide this and a shorter advantage or a lesser requirement to achieve advantage enhances this continuity.
I never understand why fans want to simplify the game. Surely some of the complexities like scrums, the breakdown and advantage are part of the charm of the game. A simplified version has already been created and it is League. IMO, League is a game that has great elements and entertainment value but never reaches the highs of rugby (Tri Nations 2010, Reds v Bulls or Stormers in 2010).
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
I disagree with that sentiment. Inconsistency plagues the advantage laws. All to often we see the man in the middle pull up play far too quickly to let anything actually develop or far too late leaving you wondering why they bothered. I won't even mention the tries that could have been scored only not to be because the ref ignored the play and chose to blow the whistle.
As for the complexities of the game. I agree, we shouldn't be looking to simplify the game. What I want is to clarify those areas that cause the most contention and turns casual fans away. My suggestion above doesn't remove the scrum, lineout or advantage. It just clarifies the law for all involved allowing for a consistent and obvious ruling each and every time. The complexities in the game are its point of difference and contrary to many commentators ramblings easily comphrehended by the Rugby virgin. The issue is the lack of uniformity in the rulings because of individual intrepretation makes the game appear needlessly complex. Remove the varying interpretations by replacing it with a clear strucuture in which to determine whats, what and the game will see a greater market share emerge. Well at least that's my opinion.
- Status