When is an advantage not really an advantage?

The advantage was tactical. They were free to play it as they wished. They decided to kick (great demon plaguing the IRB) thus had a tactical advantage. Gain in ground is irrelevant. If he decided to take it up rather than kick losing the ball they would have gotten the scrum instead. IRB wants the game to flow and with less kicking. Joubert was spot on

If they had let it go dead, might the result with advantage have been a 22 dropout?

Great article also. I love articles which highlight specific points of the games. As a BIL supporter I would say it was a hard call FOR the team, rather than on it. Once the ball was kicked and in touch its fair to call advantage over, so no faults to Joubert. I thought at the time it was the wrong decision and the lions should've run it out more to get a clearer kick to touch from either halfpenny or sexton, or just let the ball go dead to get the scrum. Of course there is the danger of losing advantage and possession of the ball in the 5m territory or losing the ball/conceding a penalty on a scrum. I still think this was the better option rather giving the wallabies possession on a relatively close lineout. It was fair for advantage to end, but a tough call for the BIL to make.

Afrikaans and english mxt i think

Thanks Bill i am allways reading roar reading your commends.i just wanted 2 See if my comment will Go through ja it Feld gr8 2 c an ausie reading Or try 2 read my comment.Ja and Bill have a good nihgt i am haven a good day

Great article. Been a bit worried the way refs play advantage has evolved over the last few years. This has obviously been in an effort to speed up the game. To often a ref calls advantage over after a ball has been kicked, but before it lands. How can you possibly know if it is advantageous or not? This actually makes for a less enterprising game, the whole point of an advantage is knowing you can try a low percentage but spectacular play, safe in the knowledge you will come back to the scrum or penalty if doesn't come off.

Jeff i am south afrikan.afrikaans speaking.english is my second.Ja and i am coulerd since 1990 ive been following ausie Rugby and still do.if The wallabies. Loose i am going through The Same emosions that you Go through cause i love Rugby and i love ausie Rugby.i have an wallabie Cap wallwbie Rugby Jersey ja.its Hard To get it in south africa and ja i love The roar just love reading your comments.i am learning a Lot from you guys.so thanks mate.GO WALLABIES!!!!

TNA - Don't be put off mate. Keep on commenting. We understand you just fine. ;)

I felt it was all good. The Lions at that moment should have gone one off the ruck and hopefully make 5 or so metres, go forward while they are under advantage, then clear it. They didn't do that. They gave it to their kicker with no angle and a lot of pressure. The first test, when the Lions had the ball for around 16 phases and get a penalty advantage. Lions had another 4 phases, make 10 metres. Advantage over. 2 minutes latter Australia score. That was poor, Lions should have been shooting for goal.

It's not equal. Srcums risk a turnover more than a ball secured at the back of the ruck.

He played a very short advantage for both teams for the whole game. While I prefer a little longer, it was consistent and fair.

It happens. Admittedly seems to happen rarely now which is good.

I definitely see your point. But it is no certainty winning the scrum (especially as a wallabies supporter). Plus we waste 5 mins with resets. The most frustrating ones are when we have retained the ball, moved up field 5-10m with the ball behind a ruck and the ref calls it back for a scrum which we lose. I've seen that happen before.

Another example from last weekend was when BOD got the ball from an Aus knock on but with defenders right on him, kicked and made a complete hash of it. I'm all for limiting knock on advantage, but I think if a player gets the ball under pressure like that there should be some wiggle room.

I don't think I have ever seen a knock-on advantage played past one or two phases?

"Advantage can be either territorial OR tactical." Doesn't have to be both. They gained territory by opting to take the kick and use their advantage. Pretty clear cut to me.

I am surprised that you know why the advantage law was introduced. Where does this information come from? The advantage law has changed in its interpretation over the last 30 years, but I am pretty sure it has been part of rugby for a long time. In my opinion, the deliberate knock-on is flirting with danger as DKO is against the laws of rugby. But as a tactic, it is quite justifiable if you think the defending team getting back 10 metres is to your advantage. Why should the defending team get the opportunity to re-set when quick "positive running play" is more likely if they have to scramble? If you are 5 points up in the dying stages of a game, and have already conceded a penalty, then slowing the ball down at the next ruck (by fair means or foul) and getting your defence set would certainly negate some of the non-offending team's advantage?

The oddest decision on advantage I remember (in a professional game) I think involved James O'Connor in a game against the All Blacks a few years back. From memory the All Blacks had knocked on or something, James ended up with the ball outside his 22 (or maybe he was inside and someone outside had passed to him?) and kicked it and as his foot made contact with the ball the ref called advantage over. Except he kicked the ball out on the full. So rather than being a Wallaby scrum where NZ had knocked it on, it was a NZ scrum where JOC had kicked it from (which was well back from where NZ had knocked it on). No advantage at all. When questioned from memory the ref said something about there being a tactical advantage the moment JOC got the ball. Anyway, I didn't want t rekindle this one incident - there's been too much of that on here recently! - but just wanted to highlight that the tactical advantage aspect is a very grey area and open to interpretation. I do think however that most of the time the refs get it about right. Or perhaps rather that if they do make an error, it's not too critical - maybe they should have called it one phase earlier or one phase later but it didn't make any difference. You HAVE to have the 'tactical' advantage aspect to the rule because if it was only territorial then sometimes it might take 20 minutes for the advantage to accrue.

I see your point Rob. However see my post below. If something is equal I don't think it's an advantage at all. Advantage means it's better. What if it was a prop, for example, passing the ball from the back of a ruck in the same position. That is no advantage compared to a halfback passing from a steady scrum. Offside lines are further apart and all forwards sucked in when a scrum is on. That cannot be said about a ruck. I remember seeing Col Waldron call advantage over from a knock on when Stan Pilecki, a prop, passed the ball from the ruck. He sent a harbour bridge pass to an opposition player who then scored a try. The try stood unfortunately. One of the few mistakes I ever saw Col make, I thought.

Jeff, if you can't say something nice - don't say anything!