Penalty Try

[mudfly]

Good decision to award a try. What would happen if the same push happened in the last second of the game? A send off would mean nothing, and conceding a penalty would be a lot better option for the defending side than hoping the attacker will not put the ball down, so players could just take out anyone out of the play to win the game.

I'm not sure what the exact rules are, but this is just logical to me to award a penalty try.

 

[AuckMel]

\
Where in the rulebook does it say 'no doubt' in concern to penalty tries?

Sec 6 . Law 3 (d)

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.


​

​

​

​

And yet you don't get a penalty try if a defender blatantly rips the ball out of your hands while in the process of scoring a try.

Go figure.

​

 

[Frenzy.]

\
Where in the rulebook does it say 'no doubt' in concern to penalty tries?

Sec 6 . Law 3 (d)

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.
​

There you all go people. Answers all the questions. Cronk was awarded a penalty try because the referee's opinion (or video ref more accurately) was that a try would of been scored.

Obviously Croker didn't get one in the Howland incident because in the referee's opinion he would not of scored.

It's black and white and all this "100% sure he will score talk" is urban myth. No doubt propogated by the media.

 

[Surandy]

In my opinion Cronk would've scored if not taken out but looking at other decisions in other games I was surprised that a penalty try was awarded.

Was it justified? Honestly I don't know as I'm not that familiar with the ruling. I think it was rather iffy.

 

[Thunderstruck]

And yet you don't get a penalty try if a defender blatantly rips the ball out of your hands while in the process of scoring a try.

Go figure.

[/left]

Because there's nothing illegal in that unless it's not one on one. Cronk was practically tackled without the ball, that's a penalty anywhere on the field. It should've been both penalty try and a sin bin.

 

[Razor]

And yet you don't get a penalty try if a defender blatantly rips the ball out of your hands while in the process of scoring a try.

Go figure.

Because if it's a two-on-one strip, then there's a very good chance the ball carier would have been held up, so of course it shouldn't have been.

 

[Grantwhy]

\
Where in the rulebook does it say 'no doubt' in concern to penalty tries?

Sec 6 . Law 3 (d)

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 his opinion, a try would have been scored " = no doubt?


Says "no doubt"? no.

"would have" means/translates as "no doubt"? maybe.

Oh, and on what footage I've seen of the incident, I have doubt that the try would of been scored.

 

[ParraDude_Jay]

"in his opinion, a try would have been scored " = no doubt?


Says "no doubt"? no.

"would have" means/translates as "no doubt"? maybe.

Oh, and on what footage I've seen of the incident, I have doubt that the try would of been scored.

Not even close. It's all to do with the video ref's opinion that the try would have been scored if it weren't for Todd Byrne. The only argument people can make is that the video ref's opinion was wrong, but then that is just THEIR opinion. People's opinions differ, what one person thinks may be different to what another thinks, it's just a matter of who had to make the decision so he went with what he thought was right, end of story.

 

[AuckMel]

Because if it's a two-on-one strip, then there's a very good chance the ball carier would have been held up, so of course it shouldn't have been.

Of course. I'm absolutely positive that would have happened.

 

[AuckMel]

Because there's nothing illegal in that unless it's not one on one.

The ruling doesn't mention one-on-one, just that you can't award a penalty try if a defender steals the ball.

Cronk was practically tackled without the ball, that's a penalty anywhere on the field.

Oh Please. It was a gentle push which Cronk miked to the hilt. The hit on Stacey Jones was 10 times worse and went unpunished.

It should've been both penalty try and a sin bin.

Penalty and sin bin.

At the end of the day, you just have to accept you'll get crap decisions with crap officialdom.

 

[ozbash]

At the end of the day, you just have to accept you'll get crap decisions with crap officialdom

dead right, all water under the bridge now.

cronk shouldve been sent off for bringing the game into disrepute, havnt seen a hollywood like that since i last watched the woolford/mcclinden show

 

[JoeD]

As i remember it the ball bounced sharply towards Todd Byrne and went past him. Even if Byrne hadn't given a shove Cronk would've had to run right through him to get to it.

 

[HevyDevy]

As i remember it the ball bounced sharply towards Todd Byrne and went past him. Even if Byrne hadn't given a shove Cronk would've had to run right through him to get to it.

I can't believe people are even arguing. Even if you think it should have been a penalty try, the fact is that under the current rules it should not have been awarded. The doubt came from a number of areas - there was no guarantee he would have beaten Byrne and Villa there, no guarantee he wouldn't have knocked on trying to ground a ball that was bouncing wildy and moving quite quickly. Then rule says ANY doubt, no penalty try.

 

[bozza tgg]

I thought he was going to score but I couldn't say it was 100% certain.
I think that means just a penalty.
And yes the Warrior should of been binned.

How can you ever be 100% certain that a player would have scored without interference??

I have only seen the replay once and I thought it was fair decision to award the penalty try.

 

[HevyDevy]

Even the Storm were surprised - they were giving it to Cronk in the sheds afterwards for a dive. I'm not sure he did dive but Melbourne certainly weren't expecting a penalty try. It wasn't like 99 where Craig Smith had already caught the ball in-goal before being knocked out. Cronk still had plenty of work to do.

 

[douglasallen91]

Even the Storm were surprised - they were giving it to Cronk in the sheds afterwards for a dive. I'm not sure he did dive but Melbourne certainly weren't expecting a penalty try. It wasn't like 99 where Craig Smith had already caught the ball in-goal before being knocked out. Cronk still had plenty of work to do.

even the craig bellamy said he was only joking when he made a comment that it could be a penalty try when it happened.

 

[NZ Warrior]

Having viewed the tape, I'm happy with the penalty try decision. Cronk was running on to the ball at pace and got blind sided by Byrne. Villasanti had no clue. Cronk would have easily forced the ball.