The Advantage Law - part one

Andrew, I reckon quick ball from a ruck is generally a better attacking opportunity than static ball from a scrum.

Dean, "I don’t see why it should above and beyond the scrum. Who is to say O’Connor wouldn’t have dropped the pass then?" These are two seperate points. But the reason why, is NZ knocked on first! Its the whole point of the Advantage law. It's the ref saying, "this is your minimum benifit from the opositions indiscretion, lets see if you can do better." If the Wallabies had a clear 4 on 2 overlap and O'Connor knocked on, there would be few complaints - they had done better, but their own lack of skill stopped them taking an oppertunity. But they were deep in there own territory, the AB's were reasonably set in defence, and nothing appeared to be on - there was no oppertunity, or adavantage, to take. If they came back for the scrum, that is a real attacking opertunity, an advantage, so if O'Connor knocked it on then, it is a seperate issue.

Ben C Agree, lost game at breakdown as NZ hurled bodies in. Legally.........well? Ref was jittery but fairly fair, EXCEPT the Baxter nonsense. Can't we have NH refs for the Tris? Beginning to wish the Welsh Soprano was reffing Jools-USA.

I don't think that's abuse of the law at all Cameron - why should a team who reckons they'd be better off with a scrum, free kick or penalty leave it to the ref's subjective discretion?

I'm struggling to understand how an advantage can be abused. If a player ends up with time and space to do whatever he wants (advantage having been called) then surely he should do whatever he wants - it's up to the opposition to close him down - if they're not quick enough or are caught out of position, it's their bad luck.

One thing with the advantage law is that it has, in my opinion, recently been abused by players. This is where players, once awarded an advantage, kick the ball out on the ful or something similar to force a break in play and thus get the advantage with a scrum. To me that is cynical play and should be stamped out. So perhaps in this light what Joubert did wasn't as bad. Again it comes down to consistency of the referee's calls. Again, as an ex-ref, we do see things differently from our position on the field than what spectators do. Sometimes we miss, and sometimes spectators do. But teams cynically abusing their advantage is a sore point for me.

Melon in terms of applying an advantage rule (as opposed to prematurely blowing your whistle on something that never ends up happening), the point still remains that it's a threshold question, i.e. the ref decides to pay advantage (because it's actually there) and then it's entirely up to the players to take it up, and if they don't, it's on their heads. Admittedly, there's probably a split second window of uncertaintly when you might consider reconsidering the advantage - and that's where the grey area comes into it. By the way, with the advantage rule in aussie rules (which actually doesn't involve blowing a whistle), the ump will actually call it back if he notices within half a sec that he was wrong (once you get up to 2 seconds, well, a lot can happen, so it's too late to call it back - so there's this grey window of will I won't I in between). Going back to rugby, I haven't read the rule book lately (in fact, I've never read it in my life) - it strikes me as a touch odd that we would over complicate the advantage rule by trying to define what an advantage is (If you've gone forward 3.5 metres; and/or you've held it for an additional 1.75 seconds; and or there are two unmarked team mates either side of you ,etc etc.) It seems to me that given this half a second window of opportunity the ref has to make a call on whether there is an advantage or not - he simply has to go on gut feel and a rapid reading of the game - and in most instances, once the call is made, there is probably no going back. Just speaking generally, and I come to this with an aussie rules background (but I think it's a principle that can apply in all codes, i.e. that the team being awarded the free/penalty should not in fact be penalised by receving it when they would have been better off without it), I would simply say: 1. It's a positive thing to have in the game. 2. It's a very difficult thing to adjudicate, but when done properly it improves the game for the spectator. 3. It's not something that can be overladen with regulation - a ref must be free to call it as he sees it without worrying about the ins and outs of pages of rules, the advantage is something you assess instinctively, without reference to exact measurement (why? because it's all happening within one or two secs).

Mungehead - I would not reverse a decision where I had called advantage over. Where I have is when a ball is not coming out of a maul and I reward a scrum to the other team and after blowing the whistle I see they have actually got the ball out and he was running it. So I give them the scrum instead and admit I called it when I did not see the ball was out. Similar thing in rucks or for offside I have penalised a player and then looked the other way and seen he has been run onside. I admit to it and adjust. Intl refs wont not that I have seen, and yes they make those mistakes and know it.

The question becomes, can a referee, at international test level, reverse a hasty decision? Clearly Joubert thought once he'd said "advantage over" he couldn't then go back and say "well actually it would have been over had O'Connor caught the ball, but since he dropped the ball it wasn't so we'll have a scrum to the Wallabies after all". The ABs would then have complained that the drop had occurred after "advantage over" had been called, so too late mate! Whatever Joubert did after that he would have come across as an ass, and probably more of an ass than some Aussies think he is now. On balance, I think once Joubert had made the ruling he was stuck with it. It was hard on the Wallabies, but what can you do? I'm sure Joubert had previously called "advantage over" many times in similar situations and nobody had ever dropped the ball in that situation at test level, so it caught him by surprise as much as anyone. And he was stuck with it. Yes, he had called it too early but that's life; as after many refereeing decisions you just have to pick yourself up and move on.

Guys somebody who reads laws books lets make him a ref because the current refs don't

BTW thanks for the response Peter K.

I did feel in the game on the weekend that Joubert gave a 'make up call' to the Wallabies soon after the incident we're all talking about - i.e. he ruled that one of the All Blacks (Kieran Read?) had knocked on on his 22 fielding an aussie kick. Looked like it went backwards to me.

Fair point Wally, you do have to wade through a lot of theatrics to get to Gould's points sometimes, but they're there, and often make a lot of sense. His method of delivery could be better, for sure. Peter K, thanks for that insight. I did a little bit of refereeing when injuries put paid to playing, and also reffed a fair bit of Touch during my playing days in that too, and there were definitely times where my interpretation was in stark contrast to the badged official. I see the same thing on the cricket field. The umpires who played seem a lot more consistent in their ruling, and seem to be able to judge what's happened better, becuase they were probably in similar situations themselves. Generally speaking you don't have a lot to complain about when these guys give you out. That said, one ump (an ex-player) who I've known for a long time gave me out LBW after a long deliberation last season, and when I asked him about it after the game he said "I could see you had tried to get outside the line of off, but it still hit you in front, and I thought 'well, he hasn't bought me a beer for a while...'"!! I suggested to him that he hadn't helped his chances of ending the beer drought...

Wally, completely agree that was a shocker of a decision.

Who Needs Melon - In rugby a ref can change his decision if he realises he made a mistake. You will rarely if ever though see these egotistical professional refs do that, after all they will get marked down for making a mistake. I actually get more credit and players willing to work with me in games when I accept I made a mistake, apologise and adjust the ruling. Of course if they then grill me on the next few I penalise for dissent. Brett McKay - In this you are correct as I posted on another article. Too many professional refs have never played the game at a senior level. I have played and there is a distinct difference between those refs who have played and those that have not. We get it at meetings when we discuss issues, interpretations etc.

Wally, you may or may not have heard Phil Gould going on (and on and on) about referee interpretations in the NRL. It is a bit of a hobby horse for him, but he raises a valid point. Referees often know a law or interpretation from only the literal sense, and not the perspective that a player would expect it to be applied. This case you've raised strikes me as a similar situation..

I'm not going to get into whether advantage had or had not accrued - others here have already stated the arguments for and against better than I could - but instead betray my ignorance with a question... If the ref realises he has made a mistake, can he not simply reverse/adjust his decision? Pippinu: Same as in your AFL example. If the ref and the rest of the world realises that a mark was NOT actually taken, why can't he just yell 'play on' or have a ball up or something? PS. With tongue in cheek: With the way the aussie scrum was going (or being judged by Joubert) anything that would mean the Wallabies avoided a scrum would be an advantage, wouldn't it?

Each time I say that I am no longer prepared to watch a test match I do, the game is a disgrace with the 'not releasing' rule and the very minor infringments that go on and we end up seeing another stop/start game. Boring Boring Boring, Union is my preferred game as a supported and a previous player at schoolboy level. Given the fact that club rugby cant get much suppoert I am always better off going down to Coogee Oval to watch Randwick or others play, even a 1st XV schoolboy game can be more free flowing and entertaining to watch, professional rugby has outplayed itself and is a disgrace to watch. Sorry!

"Normal use of the word advantage conveys something better than what would otherwise have been achieved - some sort of benefit above and beyond the scrum with their feed the wallabies would have got." I don't see why it should above and beyond the scrum. Who is to say O'Connor wouldn't have dropped the pass then?