Penalty Advantage - Attack or drop a goal?

On Saturday, end of the first half, France committed a penalty offence in a very kickable position (central, just outside the 22). During the advantage, England had several phases of play getting within about 5m of the try line. Advantage over, England had a sequence of scrappy posession and lost about 15m, resulting in an unsuccessful Farrell dg attempt from about 35m as time expired in the half.

Second half, similar penalty advantage slightly inside the 22 - Care immediately drops a goal.

I've seen criticism of both decisions. Probably inevitable considering how close the final score was, and that either the 3 points from a pen at the end of the first half or getting 7 instead of 3 when Care got his dg could have made the difference in the end.

My questions from this are:
1 - Which was the right decision
2 - Should a missed DG be advantage over?
3 - Or should referees continue to play a long advantage until the attacking side either gets a try or loses possession, before returning to the (easily) kickable penalty?

Obviously the powers that be in rugby would like to see sides try to attack more ball in hand, and a penalty advantage is something of a 'free play'

I think it should be up to the player in question, these are well payed pros, they both made a decision and I take my hat off to both of them, the only thing I do not like is the legnth of time a ref would deem an "advantage" as soon as the team with the advantage is seen to have taken it, i.e made at least two or three phases forwards then that should be advatage over, far to many times have I seen refs give a lot more "advantage" to certain sides over others.

1 - a drop goal when the penalty is in front of the posts should NEVER be considered - either go for a try (if it is on) or do something like a high kick - use it as a free hail mary play
2 - Yes, i think so
3 - no, there has to be a finite time, although subjective

I'd usually say attack...but that's just my character.  I always urge my team to go for the corner rather than slot over 3 points on a penalty.  Risk can be foolish of course, but the rewards for success can stamp your authority on a game and show your confidence.

Questions:
1.  No right or wrong decision really though.  Just a little attitude and some luck will decide which was the better option
2.  Yes a missed DG should be advantage over.  Any kick away should be advantage over.
3.  No.  No long advantages.  You might as well give a penalty try against a side as force them to play against an extended advantage.

I think in hindsight it is an unfair question to ask.

First of all, it depends where the penalty advantage is, the angle of a penalty kick might make a difference in whether a dropgoal might not be more beneficial.

The momentum in the game makes an impact as well, time on the clock could also play a roll and the players have to make decisions on the spur of the moment.

Question is if you are ahead, do you just keep the clock ticking over, or do you want to press home the advantage by going for the try?

Going for a corner kick will only be considered if your line out has been functioning well.

These factors all come into play and you have to make an instant decision.

I think Care took the right option. He got the three points and edged England even further ahead. It was up to the team as a whole after that to turn the screw and finish France off but they fell short. I dont think that is Care's fault particularly as he was subbed off.

Depends where it was.... right in front of the posts, its stupid as no one misses from there bar big gav.

If its far out or on the side perhaps yes.

But right in front in 22.... stupid.

Better to go for a move for 7 as the 3 is a certainity.

fa0019 wrote:Depends where it was.... right in front of the posts, its stupid as no one misses from there bar big gav.

If its far out or on the side perhaps yes.

But right in front in 22.... stupid.

Better to go for a move for 7 as the 3 is a certainity.

Just because 3 is a certainty doesnt mean it is the wrong decision. If anything that makes it in certain scenarios absolutely the right decision. Unless you mean go for a cross field kick or a grubber knowing there is advantage?

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Depends where it was.... right in front of the posts, its stupid as no one misses from there bar big gav.

If its far out or on the side perhaps yes.

But right in front in 22.... stupid.

Better to go for a move for 7 as the 3 is a certainity.

Just because 3 is a certainty doesnt mean it is the wrong decision. If anything that makes it in certain scenarios absolutely the right decision. Unless you mean go for a cross field kick or a grubber knowing there is advantage?

Its a 100% certainity in test rugby. Can't remember the last to be missed bar big gav.

What you don't want is to go 10m and 5 phases and lose advantage. Go for a move, a high risk up and under, crossfield kick etc but go for it, don't do it knowing it will miss etc.

Both penalties were reasonably central, and at both times it was initially Care that made the decision as to how to continue with play.

Obviously, you'd only be able to tell through re-watching whether one situation offered a better attacking potential that the other, and the match position was a bit different.

Of course, words may also have been had at half time...

I agree there has to be some limit to how long an advantage is played for, and I think Owens got it about right for the first penalty, given that the offence was just outside the 22 and we got to about 5m from the line a few phases later - we had gained sufficient ground that it would have been advantage over anywhere else on the pitch. My question was more about the 2nd penalty and how much advantage should have been allowed had we played on- about 15m out and straight in front. Easy kick at this level, so the only substantive advantage has to be a try scoring opportunity.

I seriously don't like the option of taking a drop goal prior to the penalty - smacks of a lack of ambition. However, I don't necessarily think Care was wrong in the context of the match situation at that time in getting the points on the board as quickly as he could.

I think Robshaw couldn't make his mind up   

Wrong option from Care for me, very easy 3 points if play is called back.

The risk is losing your advantage, but you can go for something ambitious as opposed to taking it through the phases. At the very least trying another attack will run the clock down and then they could have taken their time after it was called back for a penalty.

Yes I thought it was the wrong option from Care as well.

If you've got an easy 3 points on offer, which England did have, then you might as well be adventrous and try for a seven point score, safe in the knowledge that if it goes wrong you can come back for the 3.

Care taking the drop goal meant that:

a) England missed out on a possible 2 or 4 extra points.
b) It also hurried the game up, just when England should have been starting to slow it down.

I won't dispute that maybe we should have gone for the extra points, but why do you think we should have been slowing the game down? I completely disagree, we should have (and did not) increased or at least maintained the tempo to take the game further away from France. 5 points is not a big enough lead to defend with that much rugby left to play and France were struggling