Advantage: a condition or circumstance that puts one into a favourable or superior position.
The rugby union penalty advantage call appears to have morphed over time into a call that favours the defensive side rather than the attacking one, negating the actual meaning of the term. I know that sounds counterintuitive, but hear me out.
With regard to the penalty advantage call, especially for offside and slowing the ball down at a ruck, the defensive side accrue extra time to organise their line, get as many people onto their feet as possible and, in short, make it as difficult as possible for the attacking side. This is particularly so if, as was often the case on the pre-breakdown directive days, the advantage call came after a referee warning ‘hands off, roll away’.
Whatever it may be, it buys precious seconds for the defensive side.
But the key reason is that the penalty advantage call deprives the attacking side of a weapon that can really punish: the tap penalty. No time for the defence to organise but, most importantly, under a penalty call the defence needs to get back ten metres to be onside, not as little as one metre if you are getting up from a ruck at which you have just offended.
A good rule for testing a premise is to decide what your opponent would least like you to do.
As a defender you slow the ball down at a ruck, which is the poorer defensive outcome.
- An advantage call against you, where all your teammates are defensively organised and when you get up off the ground you have a metre to get back on-side; or
- A whistle for a penalty against you, a tap penalty is taken against your retreating teammates and you have at least ten metres to get back in the defensive line.
Wouldn’t the second option constantly be more advantageous to the attacking team? It’s not as if the advantage law today actually changes outcomes very much.
My very unscientific study is based on the four Super Rugby Aotearoa matches to date. There have been 37 penalty advantages (or ones that have run for any length of time):
- 15 returned to the original spot and a kick to the line taken;
- 12 returned to the original spot for a kick at goal;
- five were drop goals, scrums or tap penalties; and
- five resulted in tries.
Surely we wouldn’t want to scrap a call that generated five tries in four matches, and I agree. But four of these tries were under advantage close to the line, with momentum and with a high probability of a try being scored anyway, so, again, calling advantage did not change an outcome.
The example at 30 seconds of the following clip refers to: close to the line, momentum up, and advantage call or not this try is going to be scored. We need to keep the provision to allow these situations to play on and not blow the whistle.
However, we had 32 situations where it would be better for the attacking side to have the penalty awarded immediately. Perversely, we are taking a potential weapon, the tap penalty, away from the attacking side by allowing advantage to be called.
To play 30 seconds (one was over a minute), or more and then return to the same spot for the original infringement seems like a waste of genuine game time too, especially when more than 22 metres out from the tryline.
There is a real wave within the game right now to ensure greater ball movement and reintroduce fatigue to the sport. Walking back 20 metres and 40 across to the other side of the field as an advantage fizzles, so a side can kick for touch. It seems like another break in play we can avoid by simply awarding penalties as they occur, and running back ten metres to get onside is a whole lot harder than walking slowly back as the referee runs backs to the mark.
From my admittedly limited study I would suggest retaining the penalty advantage call where sides have momentum and are within ten metres of the tryline, but anywhere else on the field, forget the call, award the penalty quickly and allow the attacking side to decide their own outcomes.
Highlander
Guest
Had to happen didn’t it
Double Agent
Guest
28/6/20 Crusaders v Chiefs. Surprised me too!
soapit
Roar Guru
noticings the easy bit mate, caring is the next step!
Highlander
Guest
I knew there would be one, ta
Highlander
Guest
Gday soapit Thanks for reading it The distance they have to go back to the penalty mark wastes a lot of time You won’t be able to not notice from now on :silly:
soapit
Roar Guru
nigel owens called it over wallabies vs england from a wallaby penalty 5m out without the wallabies scoring.
soapit
Roar Guru
nah, under advantage the ball (and ref) ends up too far away from the mark to make quick tap a real threatening option.
soapit
Roar Guru
i was super scpetical from when you started banging on about this highlander but youve won me over. maybe not get rid of them altoegether but limiting it to situations where there is obviously good quick ball despite the penalty (as you suggest). one thing about letting advantage go is the ball ends up way too far from the original mark which is why the quick tap isnt an option so often.
jcmasher
Roar Rookie
For a penalty where someone can kick for goal that’s correct but not in other scenarios
jcmasher
Roar Rookie
That actually makes a lot of sense because the time taken to get the ball back to the mark invariably gives the Defence time to get set. I think as a referee we do need a balance and if it looks as though there will be a try or score then advantage is ok but I do agree that at times we leave it too long. Happy for a free kick or scrum advantage to go longer But maybe a penalty one should be stopped earlier
Jacko
Guest
Thats all I want. Set a single standard...Well put
Jacko
Guest
Not for years Highlander. I remember when it was the old 10mtr rule or if it wasnt a rule it was reffed that way. I dont care if they say its 10 passes or 20 mtrs or 30 seconds ...I just think the defending team needs to know how long they have to defend...In other words just give us a definition of what "advantage" means and play to that definition cos at the moment it can mean 30+ metres and 2 mins play and thats crazy...
Highlander
Guest
the old question of 'how much advantage' is a poser isn't But setting a single standard may be an idea - if its 3 rucks, not team will want it
Highlander
Guest
The advantage rule may attempt to maintain continuity - it fails however Read the article this is just about the penalty advantage 30 recalls to a prior position over the last two weeks would attest, so I concur it is a waste of time. The dropping the ball for a restart doesn't fit with the ethos of the game for me. However, if they let penalty advantage lapse once the gainline was achieved, would this not simply encourage multiple offending. The more I think about this the more I am convinced we should just scrap it unless close to the line with momentum.
Peter Bland
Guest
The Advantage Law attempts to maintain game continuity There are 2 situations 1. Knock on Advantage when the non offending team receives possession (at which time the advantage is accrued). There is no law about how many phases ensue or whether the team is “under pressure”, it is just POSSESSION 2.Penalty Advantage when the non offending team receives possession AND territory ie have moved beyond the gain line with the ball in hand (at which time the advantage is accrued). Again there is no law about how many phases or scoring a try. It is just POSSESSION BEYOND THE GAIN LINE These are the laws as they stand. If they are applied then we would not waste ten minutes each game on “non existent” time when we see teams “going back for the advantage” - a ridiculous contradiction in terms PS if the non offending team does not want the advantage, follow the George Gregan example of placing the ball immediately on the ground.
smoothy
Roar Rookie
It's simple IMO: three phase (or agreed) maximum for advantage. After the third phase of recycled possession, the advantage is considered 'over'. This would embolden teams to try 'free play' set moves under advantage (instead of 15+ pick & drives) - or simply throw it away if they know they want a kick for goal/touch. Less wasted time - and a potential to see more magic in the game!
Highlander
Guest
Like the sentiment - let the punishment for the crime I fear the laws of intended consequences on this though
scrum
Roar Rookie
That is not what I wrote. The opportunity to kick a goal is one of the criteria to be considered.Obviously if you are in the attacking half it is more significant if the advantage is given in the teams own half.
Rubbish Surf 69
Roar Rookie
What about adding a point to the try if a team scores under advantage? 6 point try. They could compund too possibly? ie. two infringements = 7 point try. That would make attacking teams want to keep playing through the advantage and may even increase their effort knowing there's a bigger reward. It has to be harder for a team to score when the other team is infringing, so shouldn't they get rewarded for it more? Maybe there are holes in the idea, just something I thought of. I feel like it could help stop defenders making cynical penalties close to the line.
Highlander, I do understand where you are coming from, I really do, I just think it is more complex than what we think. It is worth pursuing, but I think we need more statistics, measured outcomes etc.