Why the Wallabies should have lost

Who or what is the 'De Ja Vous'?

About 20 years ago most refs would probably have agreed with you Wally James and awarded a scrum after a player in Donald's position failed to find touch with his clearing kick. But the game has long since moved on. If you've been watching the game for any length of time you should have noticed this shift in the application of the advantage law. For years now -- I would say at least 10, probably 15 -- refs have been consistent in adjudging kicks like this to be advantage over. Rolland's decision here was completely consistent with the way the game has been refereed for several years now. If after a knock-on a player pumps it downfield for a substantial territorial gain then that's an advantage, even if he fails to find touch. Admittedly, it's not the greatest possible advantage in these circumstances (a touch finder would have been a greater advantage in these circumstances), but then that's not the referee's concern. All he is concerned with is whether the team gained an *actual* advantage. That they didn't gain the greatest *possible* advantage is no concern of his. Two counterfactuals to give you some food for thought: (1) What if Donald had found touch, but only close to the touchline, thereby allowing Beale to take a quick line out and play on pretty much as he did and Beale had broken the line? Is that an advantage to NZ? Yes. It's not the greatest possible advantage (a greater advantage would have been for Donald to have kicked it into the crowd, thereby denying Australia the chance of a quick line out). But it's still an advantage. The referee is not responsible for players not executing their kicks to perfection or not chasing well enough to prevent a quick line out. (2) Or what if Donald had punted the ball downfield close to the touch line without a Wallaby in cooee and with NZ backs chasing hard but with the ball taking a cruel turn and beating them into touch, before they could pick up and score an otherwise certain try? The greatest possible advantage? No, of course not; here NZ would have liked the ball to have stayed in rather than gone out. But an advantage nonetheless? Yes, of course. they cleared the ball downfield after a knock-on near their own line. A referee would be wrong to call it all the way back for a scrum simply because NZ didn't gain the greatest possible advantage from such a situation. As long as they gain an actual advantage, then you don't go back for the scrum.

How can that possibly be advantageous to the All Blacks? They belted the ball 50m or more down field. Advantage is an opportunity to use the ball, that's what they had and that's what they did with it. That Beale evaded the chasers isn't the Wallabies fault, nor that of the referee. The All Blacks weren't cheated out of the result, they lost.

The spirit of the advantage law is also to allow continuity. This has been the overriding interpretation of the law for the better part of a decade. Referee Rolland was correct!

If we want be pedantic about this - the Wallabies lost a big advantage in the first half when the ref got in the way when they were in the 22 - gave them a scrum and then penalised them

Gavin, it was advantage, no ifs or buts. However, if the ABs wanted a scrum, all they had to do was drop the ball, even intentionally, as has been the case on numerous occasions. They didn't, so the referee MUST assume they were happy to play on. In hindsight, no doubt they wished they had done just that. They didn't and so the play they made constituted advantage (well and truely) and the rest, as they say, is history. Get the picture now?

we will have to agree to disagree then cattledog. I understand your view but maintain that a 60m kick is not an advantage vs an AB scrum with 30 secs left on the clock. Perhaps the advantage law needs a few more examples on the IRB website to clarify the potential interpretations.

Gavin, give it up. It's been explained on this thread ad infinitum. Advantage was achieved by walloping the ball 60 metres down field. It was a knock on for heavens sake! If it was a penalty advantage, no doubt it would have come back for a penalty. It wasn't, advantage was achieved by a considerable degree so let it rest.

Surely an 'advantage' must be an advantage relative to something else. In this case a scrum with 79:40 on the clock. Pretty tough to lose the game from there as the hooter would have gone before the ball was out of the scrum. I'm not saying that the All Blacks should have won or that the ref deserves any blame. However, if you are Paddy O'Brien reviewing every ref decision then that clearly should have been blown up as a scrum because there is no relative advantage to the ABs whether the kick went out or not.

too true, just imagine the posts then if it was 2-2 for the serious!

that loss must have hurt you poor kiwi fans! suck it up seriously, imagine if you lost from elsom breaking from the scrum early before mcalman put him away in the corner....oh my god we wouldnt hear the end of it if this is the way you carry on about an advantage call!

Of course he was, Soapit, he's a referee. Therefore, it must go without saying he's a moron and a tool. Why not throw in tosser for good measure!! Seems to me the real tosser can't get his running lines right! Ah yes, it's the referees fault. Gimme a break!!

credit to you mate

sad sad sad..... you guys are going to have to learn to take losing on the chin! and all this after posts from disgruntled australian fans losing from an illegal move from the srcum from ritchie mccaw in the last game!! what was being said from your end that time?? seriously suck it up or at least have a real point when posting Wallabies!!!!!!

Not sure of your point, GavinH. They didn't get "a mere opportunity", they gained actual advantage - as it is defined by the two points in my post above.

Straight from the book....and your point...?

8.2 WHEN ADVANTAGE DOES NOT ARISE The advantage must be clear and real. A mere opportunity to gain advantage is not enough. If the non-offending team does not gain an advantage, the referee blows the whistle and brings play back to the place of infringement.

BLAH BLAH BLAH. cuz...louge chair refs everywhere.... The All Blacks are beatable...Get over it bro ,you lost in a close battle..just like the Wallabies did 3 of the last 4 NZ games....don't you remember those great Bledisloe tests back in 98,99.00,01,02...Yes 5 years in a row for the Wallabies and many won in the last minute.... Whilst the All Blacks are peaking nicely and they are rightly ranked number 1 The Wallabies are getting stronger and stronger building on a solid team foundation of skilled young and passionate players lead by one the greatest coaches in Robbie... Just in time for Sunday 23rd October 2011 at Eden Park... Who will choke on match day.....OH the De Ja Vous....

Interesting to read all the apologists for why the ABs lost this Test - almost the same as to why Deans should be sacked over the past Year. When this blog ends I'll make sure I cut, paste and save as a reference to compare with comments when the world cup ends. Should prove interesting. On a different tack, a well known NZ Astrologer who comments on all things NZ - but in particular horse racing - has apparently just released a new book. Actually forecasts the period of the RWC 2011. For those interested it is: http://www.donmurray.co.nz/ I don't want to preempt his findings, but perhaps the scowl on Henry's face after the Test last Saturday could be a harbinger?

Damo, It's a shame our Wallabies don't strive for the same day-in/day-out consistency as the All Blacks. They really are to be admired. They only need to win the next world cup to equal our (WC) wins, you know.....