Bill Harrigan

[RalthFilthy]

I think I remember Finch or someone ...when the Gallen PT was being discussed ...he was asked why Morris wasnt binned, they said the PT was sufficient penalty in regards to a professional foul/sin bin that leads to the PT ruling....ergo you cant penalise the team twice.

Oky doky, so he probably needed to take his head off(Ainscough style) to get binned.

 

[Misanthrope]

Witt knocked on and he was about 5 metres from the line

He knocked on because he was being pulled to the ground before the ball had even reached him...

And as insaneink pointed out, he ended up a metre from the line after Robinson's tackle. If Robinson hadn't tackled him illegally without the ball - there's every chance he'd have latched on and been able to slide the difference and extend an arm to plant the ball.

 

[RalthFilthy]

He knocked on because he was being pulled to the ground before the ball had even reached him...

And as insaneink pointed out, he ended up a metre from the line after Robinson's tackle. If Robinson hadn't tackled him illegally without the ball - there's every chance he'd have latched on and been able to slide the difference and extend an arm to plant the ball.

There are a million 'what ifs', he could've caught the ball then tripped over his own feet somersaulted with a reverse 360 degree pike and landed with his legs split on the crossbar and the ball stuck up his nose(Harrigan would award benefit of the doubt), he may have also scored a try, we don't know.

 

[parramaniac2516]

What annoys me is the PJ Marsh try earlier on in there year was more a penatly try then tonight. There is no way Witt would of defiantly got the try.

 

[byrne_rovelli_fan82]

shut the hell up eels, stop being so blind-sighted bias and take your bias glasses off unless youd on't know how to. The rules are the rules and that was within the rules and was judged accordingly. Don't like it? Too bad, you aren't the one with the power so go back to your arm chair.

 

[byrne_rovelli_fan82]

Don't drag up the past, so what if you were previously denied in similar circumstances? That has no bearing on tonight's decision. Move on!

 

[Engine]

Eels fans are bling. I instantly thought penalty try when I saw it. I've watched replays and nothing has made me change mind.

So Ron Jeremy you can stick your blind opinion. You got lucky this time.

 

[mickdo]

As I mentioned earlier as well, Robinson should have been sin binned after it was awarded PT, so Archer stuffed up on top of the Harrigan stuff up.

Well if Witt didn't get binned for holding Hayne back then no way does Robinson get binned, as a try resulted from both which was considered penalty enough.

 

[Sean7]

I thought a penalty try could only be awarded if the player interferred with wthout the interferance was definately (within reason) going to score. The fact is that the player wasn't definately going to even catch the ball, so the penalty try was completely wrong. The Warriors player wasn't even close to the try line.

I'd go as far as to say it's the worst decision I've ever seen. Certainly the most technically incorrect anyway.

I've never seen anything like it.

 

[action_hero]

Harrigan showed some balls and came up with a 100% correct decision under the pressure of semi finals football.

 

[JoeD]

IM biased O it was the correct call. If you tackle someone early within 5m of the try line it should be a penalty try nearly every time. All this what if he dropped it, what if he got held up blah blah stuff is only a what if because the Parra player cocked up with a blatant and cynical foul. I always thought that in a sitauation like this you had to take the offending player out of the equation and if you do that then he would have definitely scored. If you go along the lines of "if he waited a split second and then tackled him then Witt wouldn't have DEFINITELY scored" you could say the same thing about the GF penalty try like, "if he hadn't knocked him out with a swinging arm and instead wrapped up the ball it could've been held up"

 

[voltron]

i just saw that, and for my life he would have scored
if u had held the ball, his momentum would have continued forward
and i dont think the guy behind him had any chance to hold him up
it would have been try.

ballsy decision, but the right now
commendable he didnt chicken out of it

 

[Dr Crane]

Btw if Hayne hadn't scored his try that ought to have been a penalty try as well

 

[JoeD]

Btw if Hayne hadn't scored his try that ought to have been a penalty try as well

I agree

 

[Glenn]

Btw if Hayne hadn't scored his try that ought to have been a penalty try as well

Bill probably would have said he wasn't 100% sure and no try. ;-)

As for the penalty try, the timing of Chad tackling Witt and Witt getting the ball was a fraction of the second..penalty sufficient IMHO but NOT penalty try.

 

[eagle rock]

I have no gripes with it being a penalty try. It was clearly a professional foul, and 'punishing' Parramatta with a man in the bin and a penalty tap with two minutes remaining wouldn't have been punishment at all.

The only thing stopping Witt from scoring was the tackler and possibly the unexpected arrival of the apocalypse.

fully agree. Witt only knocked on because he got dragged down before he got the ball. I did enjoy Gus blowing up though.

 

[the Lock8]

As much and all as Parra were the better side and deserved to win, in my opinion it was the absoloute correct decision. I know what the rule says, but in the finals you can't have someone deliberately take out a player with a professional foul. Knowing that there are only a couple of minutes to go and also knowing that the worst his team is going to suffer is having to defend one man short for a couple of minutes, the game is 99 percent in the bag. It's tantamount to cheating in my opinion.

 

[voltron]

Bill probably would have said he wasn't 100% sure and no try. ;-)

As for the penalty try, the timing of Chad tackling Witt and Witt getting the ball was a fraction of the second..penalty sufficient IMHO but NOT penalty try.

but there's a difference to the player
if he had the ball then his intent is to keep going forward
if u miss the ball u slow down and change momentum to try and recover the ball

 

[Glenn]

but there's a difference to the player
if he had the ball then his intent is to keep going forward
if u miss the ball u slow down and change momentum to try and recover the ball

Looked like the ball hit shoulder before the tackle, if Witt had caught the ball cleanly would have been a legitimate tackle IMHO.

 

[Dr Crane]

Bill probably would have said he wasn't 100% sure and no try. ;-)

As for the penalty try, the timing of Chad tackling Witt and Witt getting the ball was a fraction of the second..penalty sufficient IMHO but NOT penalty try.

You.

Are.

Joking.