Last night I watched the Crusaders play the Hurricanes and Rebels play the Waratahs. In both games the refs correctly applied the current advantage law, resulting in advantages to the offending teams.
First, the Crusaders knocked on. The ball was immediately picked up by a Hurricanes player who passed to another and in turn another about 10 metres away from the knock-on. There was no gain in ground.
While the ball was in the air the ref called “advantage over”. The pass was knocked on and the Crusaders were awarded the scrum feed.
Later, the Waratahs knocked on and a ruck formed. The ball came out quickly to the Rebels prop standing in at halfback. The ref yelled “advantage over”. The prop passed awkwardly to a Rebels player who knocked it on, and another ruck formed resulting in a penalty to the Waratahs. They kicked three points.
Keep those examples in mind while I take a trip back in time.
The IRB changed the advantage law about 10 years ago.
The old law was simple. If an infringement was followed by an advantage to the non-offending team, play would be allowed to continue. The advantage had to be territorial or such possession as was an obvious tactical advantage. A mere opportunity to gain an advantage was not sufficient.
That was it. Three simple sentences, which, generally speaking, resulted in the non-offending team being better off than they would have been if the infringement was blown. After all, that’s what advantage means. You gain something better than what you might otherwise have had.
Unfortunately that is not what the law now says. Advantage can either be territorial (the same as before) or tactical. Tactical means freedom to play the ball as the non-offending team wishes.
Let’s now go back to the examples. Clearly, under the new definition, the law was applied correctly. The non-offending teams had the freedom to play the ball as they wished. However they did not end up better off.
The fault lies in the definition. Freedom to play the ball is no advantage if that freedom leads to a disadvantage.
Take the two examples and compare what they got to what they would have received if the offence was pulled up.
In the first example they would have had a scrum with their own feed instead of the opposition’s.
In the second example, they would have had a scrum with the advantage of eight opposition forwards out of the defensive line and the backs five meters further back. Secondly they would have had a halfback passing and not a prop.
What they ended up with was far from advantageous. In fact what the non-offending team got in each instance was merely an opportunity to gain an advantage. No advantage (in its everyday sense) occurred. But, because the definition of advantage includes freedom to play the ball, they got what the law says they deserved. That is not fair.
Every week I see at least two examples of this each game. The law should revert to the way it has been for over a hundred years. That was fair both in its concept and its application. Now, the law is neither.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.
Written off ahead of the weekend in several quarters, the Crusaders have responded with full vengeance after smashing the fourth-placed Rebels 39-0 in an…
The big prop has only scored three tries in his career with the last coming in 2010.
The kick failed to pass the 22-metre line.
In the Canterbury region, it's not claret but pinot noir.
The Crusaders scrum was dominant, so rather than risk yellow cards or penalty tries, Melbourne's coach replaced the three forwards at once.
The referee initially awarded the try but had to overturn it - presumably on advice from TMO.
