The Advantage Law – part one
Roar Pro By Wally James, 21 Jul 2009 Wally James is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- advantage rule, James OConnor, Rugby Union, rules, wallabies
There were three examples of the application of advantage in Auckland test which left me baffled. I’ll deal with the first one today.
In the Australian half an All Black knocked on, the ball went into the hands of an Australian who passed it to O’Connor who also knocked it on.
The ref had called advantage over during the pass. There was accordingly a scrum ordered with Black feed about two metres further towards the Wallabies goal line than where the Black player knocked on. All this happened in the space of a few seconds.
How on earth can that be said to have been an advantage to Australia?
The ridiculous answer to that question is the Advantage Law itself. Mr Joubert was correct.
Law 8 says advantage can be either tactical or territorial. Clearly the was no advantage to Australia territorially. They ended up closer to their own goal line than where the scrum would have been set for the Black knock on.
It must have been tactical one would presume. A tactical advantage is defined in the Law as meaning “freedom for the non-offending team to play the ball as they wish”.
The Wallaby who picked up the knock on and passed it appeared to play the ball as he wished – whereupon, according to law, he had then attained an advantage.
O’Connor’s subsequent knock on became irrelevant since advantage had already been obtained.
All I can say about that is – what a load of pure and unadulterated drivel. That was never what playing advantage used to be about.
Stirling Mortlock remonstrated with the ref at the time. The look on his face appeared to show complete disbelief that such a decision had been made.
Who can blame him? It was correct according to Law but completely unfair.
In such a situation it is difficult to comprehend why the team which offended first gets a scrum feed when the two infringement occurred so close both in time and place.
The Law never used to have such a provision.
It used to simply say that an advantage could be either territorial or “such possession of the ball as constitutes an obvious tactical advantage” and left it to the ref to decide.
That might not have always been decided correctly (refs being human like the rest of us) however the application of the law as it now stands made it compulsory to be unfair.
Freedom to use the ball as you wish does not necessarily mean a tactical advantage. Ask James O’Connor. It is a very poor definition of a tactical advantage.
The old Law operated well without any definition of tactical advantage let alone one so bereft of common sense as the current one.
I saw many examples of this law operating unfairly during the current season. Let’s go back to the old way.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- advantage rule, James OConnor, Rugby Union, rules, wallabies
July 21st 2009 @ 8:45am
Jack of said | July 21st 2009 @ 8:45am | Report comment
I think it all comes down to one word………..CONSISTENCY. That’s the single bigegst element that players and coaches are looking from a referee. I suppose one could argue that he was consistent. Consistently crap all game.
This ref was as twitchy as a cat on a hot tin roof. The All Blacks spotted it too and were better at playing to the ref than our boys. Why the Wallabies are constantly being referred to as smart, intelligent, etc, is beyond me. Very little evidence of that on the night.
And if we’re not very bright then maybe the plan to ‘play what’s in front of you’ needs to be dropped and we should go back to a ‘play it by numbers’ style of game plan.
Thoughts?
July 21st 2009 @ 8:56am
Yikes said | July 21st 2009 @ 8:56am | Report comment
Wally, you have most things right. Except to say that you don’t make the point as to what most referees use as their standard by which “playing the ball as they wish” actually means.
For a knock-on advantage, this is possession roughly equivalent to what a team would receive from a scrum. No more, no less. Why should a team deserve more than this?
I think Joubert erred by calling advantage over a little too quickly, because the ball wasn’t really equivalent from what they would have gotten from a scrum. So I don’t really think Joubert applied the Law correctly.
I might add, the Law has been this way since before 2000. It’s nothing new.
July 21st 2009 @ 9:11am
Dean Pantio said | July 21st 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
They had an opportunity to use the ball and it’s not the refs fault that James O’Connor can’t catch. It was a correct application of the law as it stands.
On a related note: The more I hear and see people whinge about referees demonstrates to me that very few people actually know the laws of rugby and how they are applied.
July 21st 2009 @ 9:20am
Justin said | July 21st 2009 @ 9:20am | Report comment
So why did he bring it back when Cowan made 25 metres with a kick that AUS took into touch? As someone said, consistency is key…
And how many times would you see the JoC situation. 99% of the time it would be brought back. It was also another pass behind the man by Burgess
July 21st 2009 @ 9:24am
Hammer said | July 21st 2009 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Dean – I think your right when you say “very few people actually know the laws of rugby and how they are applied” …
also I beleive that a very large component of the bloggers on here,especially straight after the game and on Sunday, are influenced by the piss poor commentary of the Kearns and Martin … there is zero balance in anything they say and hence you get the total and complete over reaction to Joubert’s performance ….
July 21st 2009 @ 9:36am
Spiro Zavos said | July 21st 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
I agree with Hammer about the commentators. The point about the way the advantage law is operated revolves around whether the infringement/mistake is a long-arm or short-arm penalty. For the long arm penalty infringement, the non-infringing side must get a decided advantage, which is usually understood to be major ground gained and/or a strong chance of scoring a try. For knock-ons and minor infringements, the advantage is usually deemed to apply when the non-infringing side makes a pass without pressure being applied on the catcher. This is what happened with James O’Connor. The pass was made to him without any All Blacks in his face. He had players outside him ready to roll-out an attack. The referee saw this, called ‘Advantage over,’ and O’Connor dropped the ball. The referee should probably have waited to see if the ball was caught. But really the mistake was O’Connor’s not his.
July 21st 2009 @ 9:41am
Hoy said | July 21st 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
Again, I hate beating on about it, but it was almost an axe to grind by the ref to jip the wallabies.
I hate being a sore loser, but he was pretty poor to Australia. All Blacks got some bad calls too, but we copped the worst of it I feel.
Why would the ref play the obscure side of the rule? I know it is there, but as Justin said, it would never normally be played as advantage over. There was no tactical advantage there whatsoever.
How often have you seen in club rugby there is a turnover from team A by a knock on, and then team B gets the ball, passes it accross field to a 4 on 2 attacking situation, and then consequently drop the ball, and under the advantage rule, come back to receive the feed, because they got no advantage. Even though they had advantage in the 4 on 2 situation, and they knocked on, it always goes back to team B feed.
It is not advantageous in the O’Connor situation, but the sour puss in me says the ref rorted us and ruled to the strictest possible interpretation of advantage. Almost like an axe to grind.
July 21st 2009 @ 9:46am
Hoy said | July 21st 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
Sorry, I haven’t gotten over the loss yet. Blaming the ref helps me deal with it somewhat.
July 21st 2009 @ 10:03am
Pippinu said | July 21st 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
I would like to put the case forward in favour of the ref’s ruling (ignoring all the technical bull shit, and relying purely on a ref’s feel for the game).
It seems quite clear to me that if the player has picked up the loose ball and has an opportunity to take the advantage, and attempts to do so, there must come a threshold when the ref says to himself: right mate, advantage called.
What happens thereafter is out of the ref’s hands.
If the player(s) concerned are so incompetent that they mess up the advantage – that should not be the ref’s concern.
It’s a threshold question, and the ref has to go on his gut feel in a split second as to whether there is a definite advantage. Once the rubicon is crossed, that’s it.
Put it this way, if the ref called them back before the next knock on occurred – we’d be all screaming: don’t stop it – pay advantage!! (and rightly so)
Don’t blame the ref – blame the incompetent players concerned.
Refs should be encouraged for looking to pay the advantage at all times, and if it all goes pear shaped in the space of a couple of seconds – we should heap blame on the ref.
July 21st 2009 @ 10:03am
Pippinu said | July 21st 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
…sorry – we SHOULD NOT heap blame on the ref!