Bill Harrigan

[gong_eagle]

Harrigan to get the Punt:sarcasm: :lol:

 

[Glenn]

You.

Are.

Joking.

Is that the best you can come up with?
Care to explain your reasons why you disagree
(keeping in mind other possible penalty tries that weren't awarded in the h&a season (still the same rules))

 

[Glenn]

Harrigan to get the Punt:sarcasm: :lol:

Maybe he needs to take off on his motorbike again after being given a rest by the NRL, like what happend after he sent 4 parramatta players to the bin vs Newcastle a few seasons back. ;-)

 

[nqboy]

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.

Finally, the calm voice of reason. The first post to reproduce the rule involved. Emotion has been too much a part of this thread.

I agree Harrigan's within his rights to award the try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team. My argument is that he got it wrong by discounting Robinson altogether. If the unfair play had not happened, Robinson could have tackled Witt a fraction of a second later and still prevented him from scoring. We've seen similar "miracle" try-saving tackles any number of times this season.

I'm not concerned with whether Witt would have caught the ball or dropped it while attempting to score or anything else. I just don't think we can be sufficiently certain that he would not have been dragged down short of the line.

 

[bobmar28]

The issue for mine is that if Chad holds off for that split second, Witt doesn't score. He gets tackled short...So how can that be given a penalty try? Maybe if Chad tackles him in the same manner on the tryline, but as it was momentum stopped him short anyway...that is not a penalty try. My other concern is Hollywood Harrigans reasoning for the decision, as far as I know that is not written anywhere in the rule book

If it isn't in the rule book maybe it should be. I think it was the right decision.

 

[innsaneink]

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.

That fraction of a second the difference is what I assume Harrigan saw as Witt being stopped just before the line as he was with the foul committed, or him either ending up on the line or over it had Robinson waited that split second until he recieved the ball, before tackling him.

 

[innsaneink]

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

I dont write the rules champ...you won, quit your whining.

 

[Misty Bee]

I'll say it again.....incidentals such as possible dropped balls, held ups etc dont come into it.
Only the basics do...or are supposed to.

Crap!!

Witt hadn't even secured the ball - he may have knocked on or muffed the grounding. Compare that to Craig Smith's try in the 99 gf, where he held the ball securely, then got knocked cold before he could gruond it (all he had to do was complete the fall).

By claiming "benefit of the doubt", Harrigan is admitting there is doubt. To award a Penalty Try, there has to be NO DOUBT.

I reckon he did it to give Witt a chance of getting the goal. Kris "Happy Gilmour" Inu doesn't need such favours.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Correct decision IMO.

 

[innsaneink]

No MB ...youre wrong.
Where has Harrigan said anywhere, BOD penalty try...I think that term was coined by a member here last night.


Look at Gallens penalty try at cambo V Wests in rd 5 this year.
Bird grubbers into in goal, Gallen chases...John Morris tackles him as ball rolls dead...penalty try.

There can never be NO DOUBT in things that may occur....Smiths 99 try, he might have lost it on the way down...yet you say "no doubt"...but you cant be sure either

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

Finally, the calm voice of reason. The first post to reproduce the rule involved. Emotion has been too much a part of this thread.

I agree Harrigan's within his rights to award the try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team. My argument is that he got it wrong by discounting Robinson altogether. If the unfair play had not happened, Robinson could have tackled Witt a fraction of a second later and still prevented him from scoring. We've seen similar "miracle" try-saving tackles any number of times this season.

I'm not concerned with whether Witt would have caught the ball or dropped it while attempting to score or anything else. I just don't think we can be sufficiently certain that he would not have been dragged down short of the line.

I concur. Furthermore, how often do we apply the penalty rule situation? Is it only saved for 'final's football'? There has been plenty of times over the last few years that a tackle made a split second too early has NOT been awarded a penalty try. To be honest many don't even get the penalty. (but that's another story.)

Harrigan made a rash decision. Fortunately he didn't cost anybody a season with it.

 

[Sean7]

The decison was awful and if Harrigan is defended by the NRL or whoever, it basically changes the rules of the game at the wrong time of the year.

If somebody lost a grandfinal based on that it'd be a disgrace and the win would mean zero. There were way too many variables. He wasnt even over the line, he hadn't caught the ball and a legal tackle probably would've stopped him anyway.

 

[Glenn]

That fraction of a second the difference is what I assume Harrigan saw as Witt being stopped just before the line as he was with the foul committed, or him either ending up on the line or over it had Robinson waited that split second until he recieved the ball, before tackling him.

If there wasn't that fraction of a second difference still think Robinson would have pulled up Witt short of the line even allowing for a wet ground etc.
Find it hard to fathom Witt dragging Robinson over the line from 5 metres out.
Either way least it didn't decide the game.

 

[innsaneink]

Why do you find it hard to fathom....Witt ended up just short, makes sense if hes tackled a fraction later, he gets even closer to the line, which imo would mean hes on it ot just over it.
Sean7: Variables arent taken into acct....

 

[Glenn]

A fraction of a second wouldn't have made up for the distance Witt was short IMHO.

 

[Iafeta]

If momentum would have carried him over, why was he tackled short of the line?

After the ball is taken away from him, his arms are up pleading with the referee. I'm sure his body would have been positioned differently had he caught the ball without interference, I'm sure posing for the referee at that stage wouldn't have been important.

 

[Iafeta]

The other question I'll ask is, what did Tony Archer ask Bill Harrigan to check?

If it's... "Was Witt tackled without the ball, can you confirm for a penalty try", then Archer has made the decision for a penalty try, and all Harrigan is allowed to check is the disgression.

Just a poser, I can't remember what the referee asked to be checked.

 

[Sean7]

Sean7: Variables arent taken into acct....

Huh? So the video ref doesn't think about what may have happened had the illegal incident not occured?

 

[Iafeta]

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 you. It could also have been Archer's opinion, I don't recall what he asked for, or what they conversed on. Archer could have said "Was their unfair play, if so in my opinion he would have scored".

 

[nqboy]

Supposition Iafeta.