Bill Harrigan

[innsaneink]

I have more doubt that Witt wouldnt have scored, so therefor its a penalty, no try.

LOL...get yourself a refs ticket and away you go, champ.

 

[Bazal]

OK parra supporter here. While I believe that in this type of scenario a penalty try SHOULD be awarded, that is, where a foul play such as a head shoot or a tackle in mid-air etc. prevents a player from scoring, you can not deny that through out this season and past refs have interpreted that rule differently. On every other occasion either a penalty was given/and a player sinbinned but never a penalty try. Which begs the question, why change the ruling last night.

Another aspect of the Jarryd Hayne try to think about, while Jarryd Hayne went on to score there was a foul play involved which prevented a fair contest for the ball, under the same interpretation there was equally a case for a sinbin as there was at the other end. Only difference is Jarryd Hayne scored the try dispite the foul play.

The rules exist so that consistant rulings can be made from match to match not so they change drastically every other match as was the case here. I support a informed change of the interpretation sure, but again that was not the case here. As such it almost and it has to be said, UNFAIRLY affected the outcome of this match.

Also earlier in the match Tony Archer stopped play to check the grounding of a Warriors try in which Krisnan Inu had possession with no defenders in sight, he whould have scored uncontested if play continued. A big blunder by Archer.

All-in-All you have to say Parra were the deserved victors here.

To be fair to Archer, the replays showed Inu knocked on in attempting to pick the ball up. No idea whether Archer saw that but he ended up making the correct call

 

[Hass]

It's a shame that in our quest for 'consistency' we are more likely to criticise the one time someone gets it right while turning a blind eye to the countless times the refs get it wrong.

Referees have been getting penalty try calls wrong for years. Because there are so few penalty tries, many referees look at as being a really big call. This means they won't put their balls on the line unless it's as blatant as possible.

As a result we have less and less penalty tries, making the decision to give one an even bigger call. When a referee actually decides to apply the law people throw their arms up in the air, criticise the ref and say it's not a consistent ruling.

Then the cycle begins again.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

I don't get this at all

It was the correct call for all money

People keep saying Witt would've come up short...wtf??? He got tackled at least 1 or 2 metres early, he lost momentum, and he STILL ended up almost ON the goal-line. People are throwing around figures like he was 5 metres out, fmd, he came to rest about 5 centimetres out. Even if he had caught the ball and still been tackled early, he would've reached out and scored. If the tackle had been legitimate, Witt would've ended up the best part of 2 or 3 metres into the in-goal.

It's not so much a question of refereeing philosophy as of people actually watching the specific incident with their eyes open

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

By the way, the Storm were awarded a penalty try in 2005 against the Warriors which WAS a terrible decision

In that case, Cooper Cronk was chasing a kick and was obstructed by Todd Byrne. It shouldn't have been a penalty try simply because Cronk was never going to get to the ball. It was going dead too quickly and he was running the wrong angle.

In the instant case, the completion of a simply, legitimate catch and pass would have resulted in a try- the illegal tackle was made around the waist, and Witt would clearly have ended up in the in-goal, so there was no chance of him falling short or being held-up.

Viewing the incident with a little bit of perceptiveness and commonsense is a lot more valuable than poring over the rulebook.

 

[Iafeta]

It's a shame that in our quest for 'consistency' we are more likely to criticise the one time someone gets it right while turning a blind eye to the countless times the refs get it wrong.

Referees have been getting penalty try calls wrong for years. Because there are so few penalty tries, many referees look at as being a really big call. This means they won't put their balls on the line unless it's as blatant as possible.

As a result we have less and less penalty tries, making the decision to give one an even bigger call. When a referee actually decides to apply the law people throw their arms up in the air, criticise the ref and say it's not a consistent ruling.

Then the cycle begins again.

Spot on. They get it wrong earlier in the year, they get bagged, they get it right here, they get bagged. And humorously enough they get bagged by people who don't cite the rulebook, don't understand the interpretation of the rule, or more ROLFMAO type of moment feel vindicated when they can cite wikipedia... that's right, WIKI-FREAKIN-PEDIA as a reference to back up their argument on what constitutes a penalty try when it is in complete contrast to the denotation of the actual rule book.

No doubt they've got it wrong in the past, but you can't bag a bloke when he gets it 100% right due to errors of bygone video refereeing decisions.

 

[mrblue]

Spot on. They get it wrong earlier in the year, they get bagged, they get it right here, they get bagged. And humorously enough they get bagged by people who don't cite the rulebook..

You mean like when Bill Harrigan took the player who infringed out of the equation in making his decision which isn't in the law book either. Heck naw.

It had been debated ad nauseum but this was not a cut and dry case to make an example of this rule, there have been many incidents in the past where a (penalty) try have been much more certain, hence the controversy even among the informed people of footy. I for one would like a revision of this rule especially since Bill Harrigan has taken it upon himself to be the sole crusader. I would also like to see a law change regarding foul play irregardless of whether a try has been scored to deter this type of situation in the first place.

 

[innsaneink]

There was hardly any debate about the Bird/Morris incident.