Kicking away the advantage

[XVProps]

Not sure if this has already been discussed, if so, my apologies. I'm a little tired of seeing half hearted attempts at field goal whenever the advantage is given. The advantage law was introduced to promote running attacking rugby instead if just kicking penalty goals. Surely once a player has decided to kick the ball instead of running, they've kicked away the advantage!


Sent from my iPod touch.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

timely thread: andy ellis did a little chip over the pigs last night on a long advantage. It was on the chiefs 1/4 line. as soon as he kicked the ref blew a penalty.....

 

[Riptide]

It annoys me less than the interminable advantage afforded after a knock-on when a team after already securing possession is then given numerous opportunities to benefit from it. One phase, that is all
It should be. They have already benefitted from the infringement by being gifted possession, and their opposition punished.

 

[waratahjesus]

I, not sure advantage is or ever was to encourage running rugby, it merely allows a team to take advantage of the situation if possible. In lot of cases the indiscretion has stopped the attacking team from securing fast ball or keeping a fluid attack going therefore the half hearted kick secures a better outcome.

 

[Dam0]

Not sure if this has already been discussed, if so, my apologies. I'm a little tired of seeing half hearted attempts at field goal whenever the advantage is given. The advantage law was introduced to promote running attacking rugby instead if just kicking penalty goals. Surely once a player has decided to kick the ball instead of running, they've kicked away the advantage!


Sent from my iPod touch.

If we did that then halfbacks would just intentionally knock on instead. Makes no difference, the attacking team simply wants to make sure they get a chance at a penalty goal. Too many times teams who want to take a shot at goal lose the opportunity because they secured an "advantage", when really they would be better off with 3 points.


Sent from my laptop.

 

[XVProps]

Wouldn't a more favorable outcome be a try? If the attacking team are in range for a FG, then surely they are also in range for a try. Don'tind the advantage being played for a couple of phases provided the ball is being used. Have a crack! If you stuff it up, well then you come back for the penalty, if not you score a try. IMO that's better than a bullshit pot shot at FG, followed by a penalty goal!


Sent from my iPod touch.

 

[Garry Owen]

Wouldn't a more favorable outcome be a try? If the attacking team are in range for a FG, then surely they are also in range for a try. Don'tind the advantage being played for a couple of phases provided the ball is being used. Have a crack! If you stuff it up, well then you come back for the penalty, if not you score a try. IMO that's better than a bullshit pot shot at FG, followed by a penalty goal!


Sent from my iPod touch.

Your right.

(As usual) The Poms and Jarpies are at the root of the problem.

 

[Dam0]

Wouldn't a more favorable outcome be a try? If the attacking team are in range for a FG, then surely they are also in range for a try. Don'tind the advantage being played for a couple of phases provided the ball is being used. Have a crack! If you stuff it up, well then you come back for the penalty, if not you score a try. IMO that's better than a bullshit pot shot at FG, followed by a penalty goal!


Sent from my iPod touch.

That's a good theory, but in practice it's hard to officiate. What happens if red is on attack just outside the 22 and red with the penalty advantage (and trailing by 2 points) suddenly makes a break and gets a 3 on 1 overlap 10m from the try - and then red drops it with the tryline in sight. As a ref we have to adjudicate that at some point advantage is over, otherwise teams would have two cracks at the cherry. But what they really wanted was a shot at goal, not a chance at a try. Allowing an attempted drop goal is more seemly than an intentional knock on or someone yelling at the ref they want the penalty (who should the ref listen to in the middle of the action?). I think the rationale for accepting that an attempted drop goal constitutes a desire for a penalty is a good one.

Incidentally, there is a school of thought that is often advanced at refs meetings I've been at that if a team gets a penalty advantage in or near the opposition red zone, that team either scores a try, or the play comes back for the penalty, no exceptions. I can see the rationale, but it allows the team too great an opportunity for an infringement. At some point the ref has to decide whether there is advantage or there is no likelihood at advantage.

 

[Dam0]

It annoys me less than the interminable advantage afforded after a knock-on when a team after already securing possession is then given numerous opportunities to benefit from it. One phase, that is all
It should be. They have already benefitted from the infringement by being gifted possession, and their opposition punished.

Generally what the refs are looking for is clean ball with no pressure. If a team gets a ball after a knock on but is constantly under pressure and has no chance to do what they want with the ball then it is appropriate to allow a few phases to see if anything develops. On the other hand, if the team gets clean ball and makes a couple of passes from the tackle (or gets a kick away under no pressure) advantage should be over. We were given guidelines last year that for a scrum advantage, any kick under no pressure ends advantage - even if it goes straight out on the full.

 

[XVProps]

DamO, in the situation of a team being behind by two, the have a crack at a field goal, I'm not saying ban it, I'm saying once the ball us kicked the advantage is gone. If that attacking team had a shot and pots it they win, if they miss they lose and that's it. It can be that easy. However, I understand the decision making for refs in this scenario is difficult.


Sent from my iPod touch.

 

[Bardon]

I don't see a problem with a team going for a drop goal with penalty advantage. It's no different to a team going for a try knowing they'll come back for the pen. The only difference is one has the potential for a 5/7 point haul while the other is a max of 3 unless there's a post struck and a lucky bouncy for a try. Either way both instances the advantage is being used to try to score points and in both cases failure generally leads to the awarding of the penalty.

 

[XVProps]

Yes but Bardon, one option is predictable and boring. The kickers aren't even seriously trying to kick a successful field goal, at least if the ball is in hand, the attacking team is working towards a try, that's what puts bums on seats.


Sent from my iPod touch.

 

[Nusadan]

A successful field goal attempt is infinitely more preferable than taking a penalty kick, just look at Harris's relative lack of success tonight!