- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
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.
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.