Cooper Cronk sinbinning.

[myanonymoususername]

You might disagree, but Harrigan said himself last yr on radio when there were issues with penalty tries that you cant give 10 mins and a penalty try.....he said they cant do that as it is too harsh.

I don't think the rules actually stop the penalty try and sinbinning, but rather its an NRL interpretation based on that view by Harrigan.

Personally I think the rules for penalty tries should be relaxed so they are awarded if a try would probably have been scored except for the illegal play.

 

[Canard]

Seems to be consistent with how the rule it in the NRL also.

Couldn't complain if it was awarded a penalty try also (would have only been a possible 6 point try not an 8 point try right?)

Similiar thing happened last year in a Storm home game (can't remember who against) where Slater did almost the exact same thing to an opposition player and got 10 in the bin for it.

Funny thing is Cam Smith used almost the exact same arguement with the Ref "Are you certain that the QLD/Storm player wouldn't have got to it first"

I know what he is trying to say, but its almost arguing FOR a penalty try in a way.

 

[firechild]

Seems to be consistent with how the rule it in the NRL also.

Couldn't complain if it was awarded a penalty try also (would have only been a possible 6 point try not an 8 point try right?)

Similiar thing happened last year in a Storm home game (can't remember who against) where Slater did almost the exact same thing to an opposition player and got 10 in the bin for it.

Funny thing is Cam Smith used almost the exact same arguement with the Ref "Are you certain that the QLD/Storm player wouldn't have got to it first"

I know what he is trying to say, but its almost arguing FOR a penalty try in a way.

Correct. 8 point try is only for when a try was actually scored but there was an infringement during or after the try being scored (such as kicking a bloke in the head, but we know how they rule on that).

 

[cyberdj]

This happened in the Anzac day test by slater didn't it?

 

[Thomas]

Surely a penalty try can only be awarded if there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a try would have been scored had the player not been fouled.

There was doubt, hence Cronk in the bin.

 

[Didgi]

Hindsight is brilliant, and with it I'd rather he gave up the possible try, not because of the two tries we conceded with him off but because of his influence in attack.

 

[Chook Norris]

Surely a penalty try can only be awarded if there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a try would have been scored had the player not been fouled.

There was doubt, hence Cronk in the bin.

in that case there should never be any penalty trys then. I don't agree with the "no doubt" interpretation. Who's to say Carney wouldn't have f**ked it up like Taylor's grounding? (i realise Stewart forced the drop out anyway)

It's almost impossible to have "absolutely no doubt".

I don't think last night's call for a sin-binning was wrong, but i could perfectly understand if it was called a penalty try.

Good thread.

I thought it was way too early to get yourself binned like that & honestly Queensland were lucky NSW didn't go for a third try. We were vulnerable and they smelt blood in the water. If it was like, the final 5 minutes, I could live with it, but that early? No no no no no.

And from a qld perspective, i'd have to agree with pete

 

[firechild]

Exactly, anyone can randomly drop the ball at any time (just as Nathan Merritt) so there is always some amount of doubt that the try would have been scored. However, on evidence, the chances of Carney scoring had he not been infringed were extremely high.

 

[Parraren]

I'd like to see professional fouls out of the game. They rob the fans of seeing how the play will pan out. I'd like to have seen whether or not Carney would have scored. Cronk blatantly cheated to prevent the try. In soccer he would have been sent off. In that situation I'd like to see a penalty try and a 10 min sin bin. If a player knows a penalty try and sin bin is the most likely result of a professional foul in a try scoring situation, they won't try it on. Even Gus Gould said Cronk did the right thing "do whatever it takes to stop the try and put it on the officials".
Whilst the rules state that a ref must be sure a try would have been scored, the players will continue to blatantly cheat. Tweak the rule!

I tend to agree.

In soccer that type of foul is an immediate red card.

At the least it should be an immediate send off if the foul is committed to prevent a try being scored. Otherwise there is no deterrant to committing the foul.

What's the point of a 10 min sin bin if there are only 3 mins left or less in the game?

 

[Eelectrica]

Better to have trusted Slater more and not got him self been sin binned. Could potentially have been worse had they awarded the penalty try and been binned on top of it. Not quite certain if that's how it works though.

Didn't cost us the game, Taylors drop in the final 10 pretty much did that, at least cost us our last real chance of a win.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

The right call was made. Deserved a binning and going by past penalty tries, it was never going to be awarded.

Gus reckons Cronk did the right thing. A penalty goal and 2 tries in that 10 minutes suggests he was wrong.

 

[Thomas]

in that case there should never be any penalty trys then. I don't agree with the "no doubt" interpretation. Who's to say Carney wouldn't have f**ked it up like Taylor's grounding? (i realise Stewart forced the drop out anyway)

It's almost impossible to have "absolutely no doubt".

I don't think last night's call for a sin-binning was wrong, but i could perfectly understand if it was called a penalty try.

And from a qld perspective, i'd have to agree with pete

If Slater wasn't going for the ball, it would have probably been a penalty try. His presence caused the 'doubt'.

 

[farmeister]

I tend to agree.

In soccer that type of foul is an immediate red card.

At the least it should be an immediate send off if the foul is committed to prevent a try being scored. Otherwise there is no deterrant to committing the foul.

What's the point of a 10 min sin bin if there are only 3 mins left or less in the game?

I agree too.

It's one thing to bend the rules and get pinged for a profession foul --e.g., making a tackle from an offside position.

But Cronk's foul last night went way beyond that. It was so blatant, you can't dismiss it as just a bit of "gamesmanship". It was as if he was giving the rulebook a giant middle finger. Cronk may be a great player, but he showed no regard for the spirit of the game, and no respect for the 99.9% of rugby league players who manage to restrain themselves from doing what he did when they see an opposition try about to be scored.

It's fortunate that NSW scored so many points while Cronk was the off the field, and his little gambit backfired on him. If Queensland had got away with it and won the game, how long before everyone else in the NRL starts doing what Cronk did?

I would hate for rugby league to become like basketball where deliberate blatant fouls are an integral part of the game. I wouldn't be opposed to players being cited and suspended for particularly bad examples of professional fouls, if that's what it takes to stamp out this sort of thing.

 

[Mr Fourex]

Better to have trusted Slater more and not got him self been sin binned. Could potentially have been worse had they awarded the penalty try and been binned on top of it. Not quite certain if that's how it works though.

Didn't cost us the game, Taylors drop in the final 10 pretty much did that, at least cost us our last real chance of a win.

Agree on both counts.

With 5min to go and the momentum on our side .....we're storming their 20m line

and then Coal Train dropped it.......

Also think Slater would have maybe got to that ball.......he's a freak at stopping tries. Who knows what might have happened.

Correct decision not to award the penalty try.

 

[orochimaru]

sin binning shouldn't be in origin

carney should've been awarded a penalty try, and all players stay on field.....

I'm a NSW supporter through and through, but we only won because cronk wasn't on the field. just like qld won in the first game with their soft tries when jennings wasn't on

Sinbinning should be f**ked off.

 

[Meth]

sin binning shouldn't be in origin

carney should've been awarded a penalty try, and all players stay on field.....

I'm a NSW supporter through and through, but we only won because cronk wasn't on the field. just like qld won in the first game with their soft tries when jennings wasn't on

Sinbinning should be f**ked off.

NSW won because they were the better team last night, with or without Cronk going to the bin.

I agree with you to a point re sinbins in Origin. There's no way that Jennings should have been binned in game 1- it's an Origin match. But Cronk's actions warranted a trip to the bin in any game of Rugby League, at any level.

 

[cornerposter]

On a side note, does anyone know how Parker got his injury?

His own studs

Harrigan also said that Inglis scored that try in Game I...

Not according to the Cronulla great Trent Barrett

Cronk did it a second time (admittedly not as blatant) just after he came back out onto the field.

Saw that, but he pulled out of it very early.

Cronk did the right thing, be he just needs to take lessons from Bird on how to be a grub and make it look like it's not your fault.

 

[timka4]

10 minutes in the bin was the right call. Carney would have got there for sure had Cronk not been there. Personally I thought we might not have scored during that period after we took the two, but Carney stood up with that play in the middle

 

[ANTiLAG]

I was amazed and laughing that they took the two after the bin.

I didn't laugh that long.

 

[Loudstrat]

The classic penalty try decided the 1999 grand final. Craig Smith had the ball and was falling when Ainscough knocked him out. If Ainscough didnt, when Smith lands it's a try.

There is no way it would have been a penalty try. No doubt Carney would have gotten to the ball before Slater, dunno if he would have grounded it, or ballsed it up completely like Inglis did in Game 1.

As for the rules - fair application. As for the unofficial Origin rules, Cronk was hard done by given the similar incidents that happened in Game 1. That's why Hodges did his shoulder charge on Carney off the ball - because in Game 1 they got away with it.

Did Cronk to the right thing? Not by the rules. But for his team did he do the right thing? I have 2 points to make on that.

1) IMHO Cronk would have gotten away with it if Slater had been quicker. I reckon he was holding Carney back just so long as Slater needed to get there. If Slater is quicker, Cronk releases him. The only reason he was caught is because Carney landed on him - therefore it was obvious.

2) 1986 Grand Final, 50th minute, Eels up 2-0. Mortimer makes a break 20m from the Eels line with only the fullback to beat (Sterling). Mortimer chips. Sterlo clenches his fist and takes his head off. Penalty. Lamb goal for 2-2. Sterlo won the comp with that play - given that f*cking blind Mick Stone disallowed Kenny's fair try earlier in the game.