Advantage laws have become a hindrance

THE mania for keeping an already frantic and attack friendly game fluid in the name of entertainment has reached epidemic proportions but we really do need to have a good look at the advantage law for knock-ons.

Take the ScotlandFrance game last week and the build up to their second try from Huw Jones in the 32nd minute. Some time before the try – but in the same continuous passage of play – Scotland attacked dangerously down the right touchline and looked set to score when Greig Laidlaw spilled the ball forward two or three yards. He then tried to regather it and knocked the ball on again while also preventing France fielding the ball as quickly as they might have wished.

France would have happily settled for a scrum, their put in. But no, ‘advantage’ shouted John Lacey waving play on as if there is any advantage in trying to field a crazily bouncing ball seven or eight yards from your line, in the corner of the pitch with all your players out of position as they scrambled back in defence.

So what exactly were France meant to do? If they scrambled a kick it would have been a Scotland lineout a few metres out and if France tried to counter-attack crazily it would almost certainly have ended in tears – nobody was in position and ‘Barbarians 73’ tries come around about once a century.

France took the only option left, and an off balance Lionel Beauxis, right, kicked it downfield where Finn Russell fielded, at which point France’s so-called advantage was deemed to have ended.

Scotland predictably counter-attacked and eventually scored a fine try but it felt wrong. Surely there must come a point when a double knock on should be acknowledged and good rewarded rather than airbrushed out of the game in the specious desire to provide ‘entertainment’.