Tekken Lord
Juniors
- Messages
- 919
Yeah but you're a fool who thinks benefit of the doubt should be used for penalty tries.
NZ Warrior said:Let's turn the table on you Parra fans here.
That try to Jarryd Hayne off the Marsh kick, where Witt impeded. Let's say Price was not there covering. Just Hayne & Witt, with the ball slowly ambling to the dead ball line (enough time for either player to ground it). Witt takes Hayne out, ball goes dead.
What decision do you give???
NO TRY, Penalty.NZ Warrior said:Let's turn the table on you Parra fans here.
That try to Jarryd Hayne off the Marsh kick, where Witt impeded. Let's say Price was not there covering. Just Hayne & Witt, with the ball slowly ambling to the dead ball line (enough time for either player to ground it). Witt takes Hayne out, ball goes dead.
What decision do you give???
NZ Warrior said:Let's turn the table on you Parra fans here.
That try to Jarryd Hayne off the Marsh kick, where Witt impeded. Let's say Price was not there covering. Just Hayne & Witt, with the ball slowly ambling to the dead ball line (enough time for either player to ground it). Witt takes Hayne out, ball goes dead.
What decision do you give???
NZ Warrior said:If you guys think hard enough about that scenario. You would be very filthy if that didn't get awarded penalty try.
innsaneink said:I think that very situation occured at Cambo this year between Wests & Sharks, Gallen was awarded a penalty try after bird kicked it in goal...Morris tackled Gallen, ball rolls dead, mander awards PT
Hass said:I'm a Parramatta supporter and very happy that we won tonight.
But I've got to stick up for Bill Harrigan.
The ARL Laws of the Game Section 6. 3(d) states:
the Referee may award a penalty try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team. A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts irrespective of where the offence occurred.
Nowhere does it state that the referee must be 100 % certain. Many referees say they won't award a penalty try unless they are 100% certain and this seems to have become something of a convention.
But how can a referee ever be 100% certain? Even if the ball is lying on the ground stationary in the in-goal area there's a chance the attacking player could over-run the ball.
Players may drop the ball over the line like Nigel Vagana did the other week. A player may put down an easy pass with the line in sight. Many people argue, "but what if he dropped the ball?" or "what if he put down the pass?"
I think it's unreasonable to deny a penalty try on these "what ifs" when there's no evidence to suggest they would have taken place.
In Harrigan's opinion a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team. I think it's a ruling that's totally consistent with the laws of the gane.
Cheers.
Hass said:I'm a Parramatta supporter and very happy that we won tonight.
But I've got to stick up for Bill Harrigan.
The ARL Laws of the Game Section 6. 3(d) states:
the Referee may award a penalty try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team. A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts irrespective of where the offence occurred.
Nowhere does it state that the referee must be 100 % certain. Many referees say they won't award a penalty try unless they are 100% certain and this seems to have become something of a convention.
But how can a referee ever be 100% certain? Even if the ball is lying on the ground stationary in the in-goal area there's a chance the attacking player could over-run the ball.
Players may drop the ball over the line like Nigel Vagana did the other week. A player may put down an easy pass with the line in sight. Many people argue, "but what if he dropped the ball?" or "what if he put down the pass?"
I think it's unreasonable to deny a penalty try on these "what ifs" when there's no evidence to suggest they would have taken place.
In Harrigan's opinion a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team. I think it's a ruling that's totally consistent with the laws of the gane.
Cheers.
RalthFilthy said:A few years ago I would've agreed that it was a penalty try, but as you said the referees themselves have said the '100% certain' thing a few times in recent years while defending decisions not to award a PT. I have also seen Parra denied PTs because of this so tonights ruling contradicts every other ruling I have seen in the last few years.
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.
RalthFilthy said:A few years ago I would've agreed that it was a penalty try, but as you said the referees themselves have said the '100% certain' thing a few times in recent years while defending decisions not to award a PT. I have also seen Parra denied PTs because of this so tonights ruling contradicts every other ruling I have seen in the last few years.
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.
innsaneink said:Looking at it again twice on fox news after the game, Ive changed my tune....I think Harrigan may well have got it right.
Witt ends up less than a metre from the tryline even with being tackled before he gets the ball...pretty sure he'd end up ingoal if CR tackled him the instant he recieved the ball
NZ Warrior said:If you guys think hard enough about that scenario. You would be very filthy if that didn't get awarded penalty try.
You just don't tackle a player without the ball, that close to the tryline. The Warriors have done it a couple of times lately. We just had Witt do it. Crockett also did it to Bali, when we played Manly. Luckily, both opposition players scored anyway. But it would have been very cringe-worthy, if a penalty try had not been given in either case.
Eelectrica said:Not at all, we see plenty of knock ons when diving to score in goal from a kick. 10 in the bin would have been fine had he not grounded it.