Advantage
A law short and hard
The advantage law, Law 8, is a short law but not an easy one to apply effectively – the one that does most to grade referees, for it is in playing advantage that a referee best shows his understanding of the game and his artistry in adding to the game.
After all, without the advantage law the game would lose a great deal in continuity and excitement, in fact be nearer to being sterile.
Playing advantage puts demands on the referee in terms of judgement, concentration and consistency.
There is often loose talk about the differences between northern and southern refereeing – most of it wild. But if you watched Super 14 over the last weekend and also watched the Heineken Cup semi-finals you would have seen top referees applying the advantage law differently – a difference between north and south.
In the south the opportunity to gain advantage went on longer than it did in the north. It may be worth just a little look. But first of all let's quote some of the law so that we know what we are talking about.
DEFINITION
The law of advantage takes precedence over most other laws and its purpose is to make play more continuous with fewer stoppages for infringements. Players are encouraged to play to the whistle despite infringements by their opponents. When the result of an infringement by one team is that their opposing team may gain an advantage, the referee does not whistle immediately for the infringement.
1 ADVANTAGE IN PRACTICE
(a) The referee is sole judge of whether or not a team has gained an advantage. The referee has wide discretion when making decisions.
(b) Advantage can be either territorial or tactical.
(c) Territorial advantage means a gain in ground.
(d) Tactical advantage means freedom for the non-offending team to play the ball as they wish.
Just some figures:
Altogether the referees in six Super 14 matches tried to play advantage 132 times. It worked – in the sense that advantage happened – 48 times, roughly 36% of the time. Not that 64% of the time is uninteresting.
Probably the top Super 14 match was the one between the Brumbies and the Hurricanes. We could compare that with the match between Leinster and Munster.
In the match between the Brumbies and the Hurricanes, the referee played advantage 19 times. It worked three times. that is about 16% of the time.
In the match between Leinster and Munster, the referee played advantage 13 times. It worked 5 times, that is about 38% of the time.
In the match between the Brumbies and the Hurricanes there were 16 penalties and 16 scrums.
In the match between Leinster and Munster there were 27 penalties and 15 scrums – a lot more penalties.
The referee is obliged to play advantage, just as he is obliged to apply all the other laws of the game. And allowing advantage is not the same as deciding not to blow the whistle because an apparent infringement is irrelevant. Playing advantage is allowing play to proceed even though there has been a perceived infringement in order to give the non-offending side the chance to play on.
If the advantage law were so written that the only criteria for allowing advantage were gaining ground or scoring points, it would be easy. But there is the matter of that tactical advantage and how soon you decide it is over.
At the end of a match a great old player said of a referee who had stretched and stretched advantage and then brought the game back: "He should give the people back a third of their money because he cheated them out of a third of the game, trying to play advantage."
Then referees are criticised for allowing too little time for advantage to accrue.
Let's look at some incidents.
Leinster vs Munster
1. Leinster knock-on. The referee says: "Knock-on Blue. Advantage." That's clear and Munster know that if they do not get advantage they will get a scrum.
Munster pass the ball some ten metres back from where the knock-on occurred. The referee says: "Still advantage."
Munster move forward and are tackled some six metres behind the place where the knock-on occurred. They are winning the ball from the tackle/ruck. The referee calls: "Advantage over."
The referee clearly though t that there had been tactical advantage.
2. Leinster have the ball and are moving on the blindside. There is an early tackle. The referee says: "Early tackle. Advantage."
Leinster make two passes and are tackled. They are about to win the ball back from the tackle/ruck.
The referee says: "No advantage." And he penalises Munster.
3. Munster throw in at a line-out. Paul O'Connell leaps up and catches the ball but is pulled down while still in the air. The falls to ground with the ball well protected and likely to come back on the Munster side. The referee does not try to play advantage at all but blows for the penalty.
Brumbies vs Hurricanes
1. The Brumbies get the ball back from a tackle/ruck. As Gregan gets the ball the Hurricanes try to grab it, they knock-on. The referee says: "Advantage knock-on."
Gregan gets the pass back and the Brumbies charge ahead and form another tackle/ruck.
The Brumbies win the ball back and Gregan is tackled. Another tackle/ruck takes place, which the Brumbies win.
The Brumbies pass twice. The second pass is forward. The referee says: "No advantage." And calls them back for the scrum.
2. The Bruimbies have the ball as they attack on the right. George Smith gets the ball to pass it to his left. In midfield Neemia Tialata is off-side – a lazy runner.
The referee says: "Advantage."
Smith's pass goes top George Gregan who passes to Adam Ashley-Cooper who gives to Mark Chisholm. Chisholm is tackled and a tackle/ruck forms. The referee is still playing advantage.
The ball comes back to Gregan who passes to Joel Wilson going right. Wilson passes back inside to Alister Campbell who is tackled. A tackle/ruck is formed.
The ball comes back to the Brumbies and Jeremy Paul passes the ball back to Gregan who is directly behind him and under pressure from menacing Andrew Hore.
The referee blows his whistle and penalises Tialata.
3. The Brumbies have the ball. There is a tackle and they are clearly getting the ball back quickly.
The referee blows his whistle. He penalises Ma'a Nonu for using a "swinging arm" in his tackle on Rathbone.
The referee says: "No advantage off foul play."
4. The Brumbies charge forward with the ball. There is a tackle/ruck and the Hurricanes are off-side. The referee says: "Coming in at the side. Advantage."
The ball comes back to George Gregan who dawdles infield where the Bruimbies knock-on.
The referee says: "No advantage." And he penalises the Hurricanes.
In each case in the above matches 1. concerns scrum advantage, 2. penalty advantage. In each case the southern match allows longer advantage than the northern match.
But in 3., where foul play is concerned, advantage is ignored in each case and the penalty quickly blown.
In neither southern case 1. or 2. is the way of playing unusual for Southern Hemisphere refereeing. In fact examples of longer attempts to play advantage would be common – nor are they necessarily wrong.
How does referee decide.
It has often been said that the referee should put himself in the place of the non-offending captain. If he believes that the non-offending captain would like to play on, then he should allow advantage. If he believes that the non-offending captain would like play stopped, he should stop play.
This would prevent silly attempts to play advantage when the advantage would go to a side desperately defending.
The case of 4. above shows a captain wanting the penalty and not the advantage. Doing that is a form of communication with the referee. Doing an unpressured drop and failing may well be a case of advantage used and misused. It is a moot point whether the referee should then go back to the penalty and the so-called second bite of the cherry. The fact is that the top referees do go back to the failed drop on advantage.
André Watson, a referee of great substance, said, in the case of scrum advantage, if he thought the non-offending side had got ball similar to or better than what they would get from a scrum, advantage was over.
That makes sense. There is no point in having the scrum to give them a chance to get from the scrum what they already had. What they do after that is to their own account.
Alain Rolland put it well: "I can stop advantage for an infringement, but I am not going to compensate for your incompetence."
That suggests that the scrum could be short advantage. What about the penalty?
The Watson principle could apply but it would take a bit longer to be realised. What happens after a penalty? tap and go, kick for touch and get the line-out, and kick at goal.
That suggests that if there is an immediate break of telling effect, play should go on.
If advantage leads to an attacking line-out or scrum, which is in any case what many teams strive for, play should go on.
If the advantage leads to a score, that is a referee's delight.
In the end, in the matter of advantage, the referee is always right, for the decision is his, but the assessment of what he has done may not find his judgement satisfactory.
As a matter of interest, the referee is required to call Advantage and then advantage over for the sake of the players. If he does not so the assessor of the match will deduct points from him.
There is nothing more satisfying in refereeing than advantage that works – especially advantage that becomes a try.
