Bill Harrigan

[Iafeta]

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.

The referees in judging penalty try situations DO NOT look to the probability of a player grounding or catching the ball. That does not come into the equation. If Hayne was held back, it would have been a penalty try fo shore fo your life.

 

[innsaneink]

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

Only variables contibuting to a possible negative result...if they did they'd NEVER be able to come to a conclusion.

Its why these incidents always cause debate, because there no definite outcome either way, it all comes downtoopinion.

 

[Iafeta]

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.

Fair dinkum.... once again, whether or not a player would have caught the ball or grounded the ball DOES NOT come into the equation. That is an incidental that is presumed to be in the affirmative. That's like arguing he might have tripped over his boot lace and dropped it forward, it does not come into the equation whatsoever.

Please Misty, do yourself a favour and learn how to apply the rules before sh!tting on the officiating.

 

[Iafeta]

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.

How does it change the rules? Does it change YOUR interpretation of the rules, or the actual rules... because it certainly doesn't change the ACTUAL rules...

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.

In Bill Harrigan's opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team. There is no 100% certainties involved with it, it is just his opinion. There has been no change to rules, or their interpretation, the only change has been the misinformation, the misconception and the misunderstanding of several fans of what the rules of the game of rugby league constitute. It's there in black and white, go and have a read before claiming the rules have been changed, when in actual fact, it appears you had no idea what they amounted to in the first place.

 

[Razor]

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.

He asked him to check if it was a knock-on. After Witt dropped the ball, another Warrior picked it up and scored.

 

[Iafeta]

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

In the video referee's opinion, it would have. And that is all she wrote, given the way the rules are worded.

I said last night I was undecided on whether it was a PT or not because I did not know the rules, now that the rules in black and white have been written on this very forum, there is no disputing it was the correct call.

 

[Twizzle]

for once I agree with Gus

NO............NO.................NO..........

 

[RalthFilthy]

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

I agreed with you(oky doky), I wasn't whining you idiot:lol: .

 

[nqboy]

Fair dinkum.... once again, whether or not a player would have caught the ball or grounded the ball DOES NOT come into the equation. That is an incidental that is presumed to be in the affirmative. That's like arguing he might have tripped over his boot lace and dropped it forward, it does not come into the equation whatsoever.

Please Misty, do yourself a favour and learn how to apply the rules before sh!tting on the officiating.

There was a great line on here earlier in the week Iafeta. If you keep arguing with an idiot (Exhibit A - Misty Bee), he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

 

[Iafeta]

A..ahahahaha... True dat.

 

[RalthFilthy]

If Hayne was held back, it would have been a penalty try fo shore fo your life.

Who knows what the ruling would have been? because before last night they let plenty of these go and they weren't PTs.

 

[RalthFilthy]

Fair dinkum.... once again, whether or not a player would have caught the ball or grounded the ball DOES NOT come into the equation. That is an incidental that is presumed to be in the affirmative. That's like arguing he might have tripped over his boot lace and dropped it forward, it does not come into the equation whatsoever.

Please Misty, do yourself a favour and learn how to apply the rules before sh!tting on the officiating.

Have you even listened to the excuses they have given for not awarding PTs in the past? the rule book doesn't matter and hasn't mattered for a long time, these refs are making up their own new interpretations of different rules every year, sometimes every week.

 

[RalthFilthy]

How does it change the rules? Does it change YOUR interpretation of the rules, or the actual rules... because it certainly doesn't change the ACTUAL rules...

THEY are changing THEIR interpretation of the ACTUAL rules......................

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.

If there was an infringement in the Logan Swann try attempt, most people would ASSUME he was going to score as well. Did he end up scoring?

In Bill Harrigan's opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team. There is no 100% certainties involved with it, it is just his opinion. There has been no change to rules, or their interpretation, the only change has been the misinformation, the misconception and the misunderstanding of several fans of what the rules of the game of rugby league constitute. It's there in black and white, go and have a read before claiming the rules have been changed, when in actual fact, it appears you had no idea what they amounted to in the first place.

The only confusion is that most of us think it should be awarded PT, but for years they not been awarding them for incidents that were even more clear cut than last night. So why the hell did Harrigan decide to change HIS interpretation last night.

 

[Iafeta]

THEY are changing THEIR interpretation of the ACTUAL rules......................


If there was an infringement in the Logan Swann try attempt, most people would ASSUME he was going to score as well. Did he end up scoring?


The only confusion is that most of us think it should be awarded PT, but for years they not been awarding them for incidents that were even more clear cut than last night. So why the hell did Harrigan decide to change HIS interpretation last night.

They have got it wrong in the past, they got it right tonight. Two wrongs don't make a right, didn't your mum ever teach you that one?

Logan Swann was very iffy to score. I certainly would not have thought he was a moral to score. Parramatta were covering across. Logan Swann bombed it by not passing on. If there had been a foul committed to prevent the ball getting to Mannering or Crockett then yes it should have been a Penalty Try, but not for Swann, he still had defence to beat. He just forgot it was a team game and not all about Logan.

Bill Harrigan merely read the rule book and applied the definition of the rule to the situation and came up with the correct decision.

 

[innsaneink]

What type of infringement with regards to Swanns near miss?

 

[Iafeta]

It's like the obstruction rule Ralth, the Warriors got hammered all year with incorrect rulings. But we were happy when they got it right, by the definition of the coaches agreement with the referees boss, in the Manly-Warriors game. Yes, they'd got that play wrong previously in the year, notably Bill Harrigan allowing a Jarryd Hayne try, and Steve Nash disallowing Wade McKinnon against the Cowboys, and Chris Ward denying Nathan Fien against Souths earlier this year... they got all those wrong, as they got previous Penalty Try situations wrong. But they got this one right.

The reason there's so much dispute is because of the confusion caused by some of the previous injustices. But when the letter of the law is there in black and white provided earlier in this thread as per the rule books, and you can then see why the decision was made, move along. No dispute, penalty try.

 

[RalthFilthy]

Bill Harrigan merely read the rule book and applied the definition of the rule to the situation and came up with the correct decision.

I agree last nights decision should have been a PT, but the thing that grates me is they have denied so many that were similar or worse then all of a sudden last night they decide apply the rules correctly. That is the part that I think is a joke and wrong.

 

[RalthFilthy]

What type of infringement with regards to Swanns near miss?

I don't know, name one.
Maybe Finch may have taken his boot off and thrown it at his face just before he dived for the line.:sarcasm:

 

[Eels Dude]

As far as consistency goes the decision was poor. There's been too many occasions this year where similar efforts result in simply a penalty and sin binning. Fair enough if Harrigan wants to make a point, but with 2 minutes to go in a semi final match, this is a bit much.

Has it been confirmed about what Vossy or Johns said about Harrigan ruling Robinson out of the equation because he created the infringement? If that's the case, then in the future any attempt to hold a player back near the tryline should be a penalty try... that's opening Pandora's box a bit.

And what about Hayne being held back yet despite managing to score, he was infringed, if we're going to be interpretational, then shouldn't that be an 8 point try?

 

[EELICIT]

Quick question, does anyone think that he tackled him as he received the ball simultaneously ?