What has happenned to advantage

[fatprop]

I noticed a couple of weeks ago one that one of the SA refs had an incredibly short advantage time. At the time I thought it was one ref's aberration.


Then this week we have seen it again both in the Tahs match and the Crusaders match, a distinct shortening of advantage being played.

Does anyone know if there has been an edict from the IRB or have some refs have just decided for themselves?

 

[Capt_Funk]

agreed.

there was one point where the tahs turned the ball over 10 metres out from the brumbies line, the brumbies started to go wide and 2 or 3 passes later joubert calls out "advantage over". i couldn't believe it.

 

[vidiot]

At first it seemed they were just doing a short lost-forward/turnover advantage, basically giving the side that gained possession just enough time to secure it and start to use it.

But in the Tahs game I'm pretty sure there was a penalty advantage that was barely an advantage at all, they didn't seem to have a chance to go anywhere let alone take points.

Maybe the problem is picking the two different advantages.

 

[Gagger]

Which advantage you talking about FP - penalty or turn over?

I'm guessing the latest turn-over micro-advantage (started by a Kaplan IIRR) has been blessed as it takes out a scrum and the ensuing collapses

Penalties seem about the same to me?

 

[Baldric]

The theory is that for an infringement where a scrum would played the advantage is over if the non-offending team has an opportunity to play clean ball. Eg, blue knock on and red take posession and secure clean ball and are able to play it then advantage is over.
For a penalty offense you would want more opportunity to play than mere sucuring posession which is why the advantage should be longer.
Then, if there is no way that any advantage can accrue then blow it up and have the scrum/penalty.
The preference for length is usually a personal decision by the referee and would depend on various factors on the day. The mark of a good referee is one who's advantage is converted into territorial gain or points by the non-offending team without having to come back to play the scrum or penalty after wasting playing time.
Now, I have a question. Advantage should be either posession or territory. If blue is defending on their line and red commit a penaliseable offence but blue still manages to get a good kick in and the ball goes out on the 10m line. Is that advantage, or do you go back for the penalty and give them a chance to kick out and then have the throw in? I reckon the second option should be played.

 

[fatprop]

Which advantage you talking about FP - penalty or turn over?

I'm guessing the latest turn-over micro-advantage (started by a Kaplan IIRR) has been blessed as it takes out a scrum and the ensuing collapses

Penalties seem about the same to me?

Yeah turnover, to me the shorter advantage will promote negative play.

Give a side a longer advantage and it gives the attackers a real opportunity to go for it for a short time essentially risk free - because they will return to the scrum.

Take that out and it turns the option to consolidating the ball or clearance kicks instead.

I would prefer the former.

 

[Moses]

Now, I have a question. Advantage should be either posession or territory. If blue is defending on their line and red commit a penaliseable offence but blue still manages to get a good kick in and the ball goes out on the 10m line. Is that advantage, or do you go back for the penalty and give them a chance to kick out and then have the throw in? I reckon the second option should be played.

I reckon blue should have the option of throwing the lineout from that kick, or kicking for touch again to improve their position.

 

[Cutter]

I reckon blue should have the option of throwing the lineout from that kick, or kicking for touch again to improve their position.

Under the current rules the ref can only give the latter. The former does seem sensible though and the idea of allowing a team to choose also seems sensible.

 

[DPK]

I think the refs are seeing possession as more valuable than previously. IIRC, in LG's non set piece thread there was a quote about a captain questioning the ref about the advantage played to which the ref replied "sure you had an advantage; you had the ball."

 

[yourmatesam]

Short advantage should be played for a knock on/forward pass ie secure possession then get one pass wide, advantage over or come back for scrum.

Longer advantage (depending on location on the field) for penalty infringements, particularly when attacking in the red zone.

I think there were some seriously short advantages played over the weekend, particularly in the Brumbies Tahs game.

 

[Tahfan]

I like the way advantage is being refereed now. knock on's and other minor infractions are having little advantage accrued and once you have secured the ball it's play on. THANK GOD for that, something that gets the game moving!!

Penalties seem about the same and could actually be shortened significantly (i.e. blown quicker then they are now) especially if they are not near the line. Why do we need to play 5 or 6 phases of rucks on the halfway line chew up a minute or two of play to just come back for a long arm that will be kicked into touch (or over the black dot @ Loftus). No problem with longer advantage in the red zones but lets use some common sense further out....

 

[Slim 293]

One thing that irks me is when teams blatantly infringe following a knock on and then play is pulled up for the knock on...

Surely either the advantage is over and it's a penalty, or the advantage is increased to a penalty advantage... referees already update penalty advantages if teams continue to infringe while advantage is already being played for a penalty...

I mentioned in another thread that Joubert shat me a couple of times in the game on the weekend and this was one of them...

Tahs knock on 5m out from their line, so Baxter comes in from well offside at the back of the ruck to disrupt the play (all in front of the ref), but Joubert just blows it up for the scrum...

It seems to be an issue that occurs in many games...

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Now, I have a question. Advantage should be either posession or territory. If blue is defending on their line and red commit a penaliseable offence but blue still manages to get a good kick in and the ball goes out on the 10m line. Is that advantage, or do you go back for the penalty and give them a chance to kick out and then have the throw in? I reckon the second option should be played.

My preferred philosophy on advantage is shorter advantages as it aids continuity and there is less wasted play. I have a different answer to the above question and it also relates to my philosophy. I think advanatge should be played when there is a strong chance of achieving advantage. In the above scenario, there is a low chance of achieving advantage, so the advantage should not be played and the penalty should be given straight away.

I have written previously that the elite referees make few mistakes in their application of advantage. However I have been very disappointed with its application recently as I feel that advantage has become way too short.