The high ball/cross kick for penalties inside the 22 is now becoming standard practice...

......the trick is you put the ball into the in goal area and if you are lucky enough you get the try. If not there is no guessing about advantage being over. The Scots benefited from this tactic. And no, if the opponent marks the ball advantage isn't over as one dolt thought a few years back.

In the Canes game this weekend both Barrett's did this (cross kicks) to perfection & I believe that it wasn't just when there was an advantage for a penalty. It's a thing of beauty. 

  Standard practice in rugby league .

 There are requirements though - the kick must be inch-perfect and the repient able to outjump his opponent for the ball.
A strategy to be used as a variation - not as a rule.

A good tactic when the opposition defence is pulled in, creating space on the outside where attacking players outnumber the defence, or there is just no defender. Otherwise, it is a 50/50 at best. 
.......I might have misread the title:If the referee is playing advantage- the kick must be a good option as it is a 50/50 ball - because there will be lots of player from both teams than can compete. 
If the defending team get the ball back, it is a penalty to the attacking team in the 22.

 That is why I say variation.   Mozart as per normal thinks it is a regular process and it has been seen that such a kick - if not accurate - ends u p in a try on the other side of the field.  

Be nice to have a Folau or Ben Smith .

 Rugby league has been doing it for yonks, a tactic gaining popularity in Union.

 Here is a cross kick by Barrett to a SA born player
Cross kick

I think what Mozart means, is playing the advantage rule by taking the cross kick.If the referee has his arm up for a penalty- then just do a cross kick right away. 
It is a 50/50 ball. If the attacking team catches it over the try line, then it is a certain try.  

If the defending team wins the ball, the referee will then award a penalty to the attacking team following the advantage rule.
The main thing is kicking it behind the try line or just in front. 

Yes, what Mozart said was clear enough, in my post I am saying that it is sometimes used even when there is not a penalty advantage. In any case it is beautiful to watch when it is executed successfully.

Yep Shark that was the point, rather than half hearted phase play.....why not go for the 50/50 option, knowing the worst case is the penalty is given.

Well Etsebeth started his career on the wing so perhaps its time to return.

Seriously though, we don't have any high ball maestros, do we ?

Last one was Basson.

 
There are some rules that can be exploited to the point of being unfair. This is one of them in my opinion.

The defending team should be given the right to compete at all times.

 

 Mozart discovered the cross-kicking strategy a few years ago - he has a kicking mania approach to all things rugby - and when I pointed out that it could be dangerous he claimed the advantage option as a guarantee to make it happen - so the attacking team can still fall back on other options stemming from the penalty.  
That being said it is an option with a fairly low success rate and it entirely depends on the accuracy of the kicks and the ability of the player(s) to compete in the air to ensure possession.   However - our kicking mania expert has no idea about the quality of kicks - so he does not understand that it is an option that could be used as a variation.  
    

 Quite common in rugby league games. According to this board, this is enough to disqualify the move.

  "Quite common in rugby league games. According to this board, this is enough to disqualify the move."
Liewe bliksim Batman. It is only excellent men who catch excellent high balls to score excellent tries. The trick is that very few resources are spent since only one kick and catch are need to score a try. Truly the excellent men are making great strides in preserving the resources of the planet.
Viva excellent men and excellent rugby. VivaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

 Playing professional rugby in any form is not making great strikes in preserving the resources of the planet.

SA rugby teams could score tens of these every week end, this wont change a single second the state of resources in SA. That will keep pushing SA to the brink of the abyss.

 Lol

Do we have a Mozart vs Clevernike type "debate" developing between Plum& trad? Can Trad develop a logical argument or even a response ... the truth will unfold, lol in any case I hope we don't end up with another pair of posters that hijack every thread.

 
I don't read a single word of Trad posts.

Why do you bother with this fool?

Wish I could find an X to click on.

 CC
When I have nothing to do I sometimes read the Trad posts - but it is so mixed up with rubbish that it is total make-belief.  
However - to come back to the issue under discussion.   There are a number of other options available and some are more effective - wait for the penalty to be awarded and make a quick tap kick - that has a much higher success rate than the corner kick which eliminated that option completely.    

 CC
When I have nothing to do I sometimes read the Trad posts - but it is so mixed up with rubbish that it is total make-belief.  
However - to come back to the issue under discussion.   There are a number of other options available and some are more effective - wait for the penalty to be awarded and make a quick tap kick - that has a much higher success rate than the corner kick which eliminated that option completely.    

 
Taking an immediate shot at the posts and reverting to the penalty if missed is acceptable.

Thumping an up and under should be viewed as the penalty taken. If it's a poor kick and the defending team comes away with the ball then sobeit. Play should continue from there. The attacking team shouldn't be given another opportunity with the ball to attack.

Take your opportunity when it presents itself. Use a little intellect in making the correct decision ... don't squander it ... do not expect to be rewarded over and over again when you mess your opportunity up.

The defending team should be given the right to compete for the ball at all times.

Some refs push it too damn far. They'll keep going till the attacking team scores. Over and over again. 16 men vs 15.

A sense of fair play would be nice for a change.



 

 @CC
"Thumping an up and under should be viewed as the penalty taken."
How can that be viewed as a penalty taken and not "advantage"?
The up and under may be called for if the fullback is up or if no one is back defending.

(please lets have a normal discussion, without slandering. I'm intrested to know your thoughts on this )

@cc,

"Thumping an up and under should be viewed as the penalty taken. If it's a poor kick and the defending team comes away with the ball then sobeit. Play should continue from there. The attacking team shouldn't be given another opportunity with the ball to attack."

i disagree, thumping an up and under is still a 50/50 on who is going to get the ball, not winning the ball back is hardly an advantage for an infringement in the red zone.

usually if the attacking team does win the ball and does not score from it, then i would have no probs if it were ruled advantage over, but thats not the case at the moment.

 I do not agree that an up and under is a good option in the case of a penalty advantage being played. An up an under is not a targeted kick whereas a cross kick is targeted and looking for a one on one or even an unmarked player. I also disagree with CC's statement about advantage being over on an up and under if the opposing team wins the ball, there is no advantage gained so the penalty should then be ruled against the team that committed the infringement.
Better options are: If you are in range a drop goal makes sense, so does a series of pick and goes if you are within the 10 as you also have to option of going wide (passes of cross kick) if you get the opposition to play narrow.
Hi Naru san welcome back, hope you stick around more this year.

 
That's the risk you take, Monkey. Being reckless with a poor attacking kick shouldn't be rewarded with a do over, hence my call for a little intellect.

In the end if the attacking side gathers the ball from an up and under and fails to score after a few phases they should accept that they blew an opportunity and move on with play ... not go back 50m and have another crack at it.

Same goes for loosing the high ball to the defending side. The defending side should be rewarded for their outstanding defence and not be punished for the attacking side's reckless blunders.

In a way you support my comment. 

Mulligans should not be a part of rugby.

 Let's be clear.....if you launch an up and under or a cross kick immediately after the ref indicates penalty advantage....it reverts to the penalty kick if you lose possession. If you regain possession it's possible some refs may say advantage over.....but most wait for clear advantage. .... So it's a no cost way of probing for a try. .... The drop is used when you want to take the highest probability route to three points.....avoid the risk of advantage over and have two shots at the three points. ..... Those are the rules......what Desnotter thinks is illogical......what's the difference between allowing ten or more phases and one crosskick? In any case the rules are clear.

 Mozart thinks it works out all the time.  So what he does not realize is if the ball goes over the dead ball line without being touched or over the sideline with the same situation - the referee concerned may decide that the penalty advantage has been lost and it is a scrum from where the kick was taken and the end result would be to the detriment of the team.   
It is a minor option - and could be a variant, but the whole process has a less than 50% chance of being successful.   Matter of fact very, very dicey and not a real option at all for the inaccurate SA kickers.   Lambie, Du Plessis and Zeilinga yes - the rest NO.
Much better to attempt a drop kick or a corner kick after the actual penalty was awarded than taking an iffy chance with dubious success credentials.

 No he wont decide it's advantage over.....that's complete utter balls.....dreamed up by Tokkie just to be contrary because he lost the argument.

 I say that kicking is a variation - fool - but to make out that it is the only thing to try is standard Mozart ignorance.  

You say the kick will be ruled dead and advantage over.....you might want to check out the board poll on the topic......and improve your weak understanding of the laws.

 I thought there was a reason for the pol. Lol!

Whatever it takes.

 One meaningless poll started by the non-functional brain cell of yours.   When will you get over your kicking mania and the idea that 90% of the functions of a flyhalf is to kick balls?  

 One meaningless poll started by the non-functional brain cell of yours.   When will you get over your kicking mania and the idea that 90% of the functions of a flyhalf is to kick balls?  

Meaningless because you lost 9 to zero. LMAOFY!

 Answer my question drip/idiot