Bill Harrigan

[Tekken Lord]

Yeah but you're a fool who thinks benefit of the doubt should be used for penalty tries.

 

[NZ Warrior]

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???

 

[Bazal]

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 and Witt in the bin. As it was Hayne only just got there, so there would be nothing to indicate he was certain to score

 

[parra-matters]

as stated before BOD does not exsist with PT's, you have to be 100% sure that the player would have scored.

Secondly, does Harrigan have it in for Parramatta?
Some of his video against us this year have been strange to say the least.

 

[parra-matters]

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.
Sin Bin for 10.

 

[NZ Warrior]

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.

 

[innsaneink]

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???

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

 

[RalthFilthy]

If you guys think hard enough about that scenario. You would be very filthy if that didn't get awarded penalty try.

Us Eels fans have been in that situation before, feeling robbed and wanting a PT, but then they come up with the 'he wasn't certain to score' crap, and we were filthy. So on past performances for us it shouldn't have been a PT.

 

[Hass]

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.

 

[NZ Warrior]

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

I thought there was a similar situation that I saw. Cheers.

Look, I think that is the correct call. If we have obstruction rules governed by absolutes (that the obstructed player was definitely going to tackle the player who was shielded). Then why can't it be applied in the same way to awarding penalty tries. The player was obstructed, if he wasn't obstructed, he would have scored the try.

 

[NZ Warrior]

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.

Thank God. Finally, some logic and common sense comes into play.

One of the best posts of the night, on this matter. Thank you.

 

[innsaneink]

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

 

[RalthFilthy]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[NZ Warrior]

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.

Like I said in a previous post. Consistency isn't in an NRL ref's vocabulary. They'll think you are talking another language if you ever said the word to them.

As far as sin binning a player after a PT is awarded, I don't know what the rules would say about that. Maybe if we had a situation like we did in the '99 GF.

 

[NZ Warrior]

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

Top stuff there, Innsaneink.

 

[drtymnd]

As a Parra fan my reaction to the decision was "Oh no" (and a few other choice phrases)! As a footy fan, my first instict was "Hang on, penalty try". And as the previous posts have mentioned it should be a penalty try as an illegal play has prevented a try. However what gets my goat is:

- How many times have we seen players tackled without the ball in that situation and only a penalty is given? If all of a sudden the ruling is for a pen try in that situation, then great, but at least advise the clubs and the fans. If that happened last week it would've been a penalty and a sin bin. In all honestly its just Harrigan wanting to show himself being above his peers with a "courageous" decision.

- Harrigan's explanation (once he commits foul play he is taken out of the equation) is the DUMBEST thing I have heard in league. In 100 years this has NEVER been a consideration, and yet tonight...

Funny thing is I consider Harrigan to be the best ref in sporting history (including soccer, tiddlywinks etc) but sometimes, fair dinkum! I also agreed with him when he binned all those Parra players against the Knights in 2002, but why one once, and why only Parra!

 

[Eelectrica]

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.

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.

 

[NZ Warrior]

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.

Old ground, mate. We're moving on.

 

[Hallatia]

it was a professinal foul from Robinson, and I would have had no problem with him being binned for it, but none of it warranted a penalty try, Witt knocked on and he was about 5 metres from the line

At the end of the day, we got the right result, a lot of people will never agree with the decision, but it did not cost us the game, so everything turned out okay in the end, I guess that these things happen. I respect Bill a lot as a referee, I was filthy about the decision at the time, I was even more filthy at the justification but no point crying over spilt milk and I just hope that Parra improve on this game next weekend.