snickers007
Juniors
- Messages
- 1,643
This is the rule:
(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.
There was a swinging arm by Jennings that contacted both the ball and the head of the ball carrier (albeit with not a great amount of force hence it was a grade 1). We're talking semantics here. If the swinging arm had not contacted the head, the try would still not have been scored. I'd argue that the ball was knocked out legally whereas the high shot was illegal. The fact that they happened within milliseconds or which happened first is irrelevant.
Anyway its better that this decision goes against us in a game we were losing anyway, rather than a GF as happened last year.
The NRL don't play by the International Laws of the Game - which is where your definition of a penalty try comes from.
They have their own set of guidelines and KPI's which they play by - and while most of them are heavily guided by the International Laws, there are a lot of gaps (like above).
It's borderline impossible to find any official documentation that covers all of it, which is highly frustrating.
The other thing to keep in mind is that knocking the ball out/stripping is ruled differently in the field of play versus in the in-goal for some reason. Most of the time a strip/knock out in the field of play is ruled as a knock on against the player carrying the ball. In the in-goal, it is mostly ruled as 6 more, no knock on.
As such in the above, the ball is knocked out by Jennings, no knock on by Tigers. The Tigers player is then fouled by the high tackle, and fails to regather the ball to claim the try. And by that order of events, the standard International Laws of the Game ruling of Penalty Try can be applied.
As you said, it's bullshit semantics, and completely ignores any understanding of the game and how it is played. But most of all it seems to be applied with very little consistency from match to match, week to week and referee to referee.