Bill Harrigan

[innsaneink]

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?

Arent 8 point trys only awarded when a fould is committed AFTER a try's been scored.

The Hayne foul occurred before he scored

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

Not me.

 

[El Diablo]

yes

 

[Iafeta]

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

No.

 

[Iafeta]

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?

It's an 8 point try only if there's foul play after the try is scored. Such as an elbow dropped late or something like that.

So if consistency has been poor, we should just throw the rule book out and say "oh well, the bloke three weeks ago got it wrong, can't get it right now"?

 

[mrblue]

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.

 

[innsaneink]

You have way too many decisions in the game now open to interpretation by the refs, with 8 games each week and 8 different refs officiating, youre bound to get inconsistencies...thats what happens with humans as this very thread shows...when things arent balck or white, we all see them a little differently.

 

[Jobdog]

And Bill was wrong ......

 

[Iafeta]

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.

Why should there have been a sin bin for Hayne's try? Foul play did NOT prevent a try. You don't bin a bloke when what he's done hasn't prevented the try scoring movement. That's ludicrous. Likewise, the Parramatta player was not sin binned. It would have been double jeopardy. Double penalty. It's like awardin a try, and then a penalty shot as well. You only get an 8 pointer if there's foul play AFTER the try is scored.

It doesn't matter at all how the referees have got it wrong in the past. Surely all we're after is getting it right in the now, and working forward. A referee can't go into the game thinking, "you know what, I called a couple of dusty knock ons in the earlier home and away fixture, I'll let a couple of certain knock ons go to get back evens for the name of consistency."

Krisnan Inu had two Warriors defenders coming across. It is an illusion created by Phil Gould, that is quite incorrect. If you watch the replay, Inu is near the sideline, 20m out when play is stopped, there are two Warriors nearly on him. Gould does not want you to know that, and of course you believe him, but when you see the replay you see how laughable his comments really were.

 

[mickdo]

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

It was about 3 frames early on the slo mo. Not much (only a fraction of a second), but definitely early.

 

[mrblue]

Why should there have been a sin bin for Hayne's try? Foul play did NOT prevent a try. You don't bin a bloke when what he's done hasn't prevented the try scoring movement. That's ludicrous. Likewise, the Parramatta player was not sin binned. It would have been double jeopardy. Double penalty. It's like awardin a try, and then a penalty shot as well. You only get an 8 pointer if there's foul play AFTER the try is scored.

I said the case for both was equal I never said either should have been sinbinned. That is my opinion only, because simply awarding a try that would have been scored anyway provides no dis-incentive to foul play where as "double jeopardy" or really single jeopardy does.

It doesn't matter at all how the referees have got it wrong in the past. Surely all we're after is getting it right in the now, and working forward. A referee can't go into the game thinking, "you know what, I called a couple of dusty knock ons in the earlier home and away fixture, I'll let a couple of certain knock ons go to get back evens for the name of consistency."

It does matter, that's how players respond to decisions and rulings and how coaches coach players around the play of the ball, and how to set defensive styles it all comes down to the interpretation of the rules and how much you can get away with really.

Krisnan Inu had two Warriors defenders coming across. It is an illusion created by Phil Gould, that is quite incorrect. If you watch the replay, Inu is near the sideline, 20m out when play is stopped, there are two Warriors nearly on him. Gould does not want you to know that, and of course you believe him, but when you see the replay you see how laughable his comments really were.

I disagree here too. He had them all beat.

 

[Iafeta]

I said the case for both was equal I never said either should have been sinbinned. That is my opinion only, because simply awarding a try that wouldn't have been scored anyway is no di-incentive to foul play where as "double jeopardy" or really single jeopardy is.



It does matter, that's how players respond to decisions and rulings and how coaches coach players around the play of the ball, and how to set defensive styles it all comes down to the interpretation of the rules and how much you can get away with really.



I disagree here too. He had them all beat.

Rubbish. Coaches set plays based on the rules. If they set one that is not to the rulebook, and get pulled up on it, ala Des Hasler, that's their problem.

Why should their be extra disincentive to an early tackle other than 6 points? The early tackle has only prevented 6 points, no extra problems.

You may disagree on the Inu part, but you are quite clearly wrong. Have a look at the replay, there are two Warriors coming across, and Inu is up against the sideline.

 

[Seccie]

No way that was a penalty try. Harrigan was just looking for a reason to make the game close.

Wrong. Harrigan was just looking for a reason to be the centre of attention.

 

[nqboy]

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.

Check the replay.

 

[Iafeta]

Wrong. Harrigan was just looking for a reason to be the centre of attention.

Even though he got it right by the letter of the law?

Good call. 2 from 2 top posts from you, you'll go a long way.

 

[mrblue]

Rubbish. Coaches set plays based on the rules. If they set one that is not to the rulebook, and get pulled up on it, ala Des Hasler, that's their problem.

Why should their be extra disincentive to an early tackle other than 6 points? The early tackle has only prevented 6 points, no extra problems.

You may disagree on the Inu part, but you are quite clearly wrong. Have a look at the replay, there are two Warriors coming across, and Inu is up against the sideline.

Look I think all rules are subjected to interpretation i.e. the 10m rule, the ruck, the grapple tacke, lifting a player etc. Consistancy in interpretation allows the players and coach to respond contructively rather than being bitten on the arse when one ref decides to change the direction of the ship mid-season.

 

[Apey]

I think it was the correct call personally, and I said to my mates that it would be one before it happened.

 

[Sterling]

whats with all the arguing? ... it didnt decide the game so who cares ... eels won

 

[Seccie]

Even though he got it right by the letter of the law?

Good call. 2 from 2 top posts from you, you'll go a long way.

Any comment re: PJ Marsh being clearly tackled without the ball in the in-goal area v Souths at Telstra in Round 2??

That was the most blatantly obvious penalty try and it wasn't given.

 

[eels_fan_01]

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

 

[Seccie]

Good call. 2 from 2 top posts from you, you'll go a long way.

Haha, good to see you have formed such an educated opinion in so short a timespan.