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.
Hoy
Roar Guru
Two years ago, playing grade in Brisbane, my team was given advantage from an offence within our own 22. Playing it safe, we kicked it out, fully expecting the penalty to blow, and we get the penalty kick to relieve pressure. Unfortunately, the ref was very young, and once we kicked, blew advantage over, and the opposition got the lineout on the 22, and within about two phases had scored. I blew up as captain when he first blew advantage over, and said what about our advantage, and the young bloke said "You have territorial advantage". I went beserk internally, but rather calmly pointed out that we don't get the lineout as we should. Of course it was too late, and we had to wear it, but I gave the bloke a massive serve after the game about it, and he was mystified as to what the issue was, saying he had blown that way all year. I couldn't believe my ears. Anyway, that is one example of a completely wrong interpretaion of advantage in my view.
Cattledog
Roar Guru
A knock on is not an offence (although I agree with the rest of Hoy's post) and thus although the opposing team is given 'advantage', this should perhaps be called an 'opportunity'. I have long been a critic of the 'too long an advantage' for a knock-on. Let's attempt to reduce the scrums, not increase them. Should the opposing team get the ball and as has been explained in the two games mentioned, is given the opportunity to use that ball and can play it at the advantage line, then for my mind, that's fine. Remember, if a team doesn't want the ball from broken play and prefers the scrum, they can immediately drop the ball and recover it, as long as the referee has indicated advantage. This, however, may set dangerous precedents and IMO, would be ill advised, especially if an initial knock-on is un-detected. A penalty advantage is an entirely different circumstance as advantage is being played as a result of an offence, rather than merely a dropped ball. The laws of the game are there to be interpreted and applied by the referee. 99 times out of 100, common sense prevails in such circumstances and the game continues as it should. It's important referees are given the opportunity to interpret laws, especially the application of the advantage law. A team who struggles continually at scrum time will probably have advantage interpreted differently to a strong scrummaging team. Perhaps a team just getting the ball back and securing it in a ruck may be advantage enough if they have lost the majority of their own scrums. It's the referee's ability to have a feel for the game and facilitate the two teams within the laws of the game so as they get a reasonable amount of ball in play. Such a referee is generally well respected by the players and his understanding of what the teams at various times are trying to achieve enhances the spectacle for all. Such a referee is, of course, from a perfect world ;)
Wally James
Roar Guru
Peter Interestingly the law does not refer to any distinction between advantage deriving after an infringement resulting in a scrum or a penalty. The Law simply gives the ref a wide discretion. Certainly in practice they are treated differently. But it seems to me that is because of what needs happen after an infringement to be more advantageuous to the non-offending team. Which, of course, is my very point. Compare what happens after the infringement and if that is not better (and I don't mean equal to) what you would otherwise have, then there was no advantage accruing. Cheers Wal
Wally James
Roar Guru
Hoy Your last point will always be deabated I think. Is that an advantage or merely an opportunity to gain an advantage? I accept there will be as many views on it as their are people. However it seems to me, given that situation, it is helpful to think what would have happened if the ref had simply blown without playing adbantage. Did they get better than the scrum they would have had? I think the answer is no, in which case - back for the scrum. Cheers Wal
PeterK
Guest
Big big difference between penalty advantage and scrum advantage. Both cases cited were scrum advantage. The ethos should be did you get at least the advantage you would have if you had a scrum. Thats all. That does NOT mean territorial advantage after all you get the ball at the back of the scrum 3 metres behind the infringement. From a scrum you get to pass the ball or kick it. So having 1 or 2 clean passes or a clean kick is easily sufficient scrum advantage.
Hoy
Roar Guru
Tough one here. The oppurtunity to take advantage of the oppositions unorganisation... but in those instances given, there has been zero advantage from the offence. Their interpretation would appear to be then that your advantage is you now have the ball. That is not advantagous in certain situations at all, as Wally says, a prop passing out of a ruck is hardly an advantage to any team. But in saying that, if you pass three balls sideways, create space, then advantage over, and if you knock on with zero ground gain, then tough biccies I think. You used the ball well, created chances, and blew it.
soapit
Guest
one phase should be enough. at least you get to organise your attack like you would from a scrum (one tackle/ruck after the knock on and then you get one more go and if nothings by the next tackle come back, unless theres territory on the first one). getting scrappy ball from a knock on and trying to make something of it is always going to be less of an advantage. the old days a team could throw it round a bit off a knock on to try and make the break which was great entertainment but now you can't risk it.
Carnivean
Guest
So just because 2 teams dropped their chances means it's a bad rule? Nobody should want the ball to go back 3 or 4 phases to a scrum for a knock-on.