The penalty try rule

[waltzing Meninga]

In light of last nights decision not to award a penalty try to Carney and instead send Cronk to the bin, it seems most agree the correct decision was made. However if the same thing happened with 10 seconds to go and QLD were up by 4 points, would we still have been happy? What about the dying stages of a GF? At this point the sin bin isn't an option so what happens? Does the video ref change his interpretation of the rule given the bin isn't an option and award the try, or does he disallow the try and allow a team to win a game through blatant and professional cheating?

It seems the ruling needs to be clarified or changed to avoid serious embarrassment to the game if this were to happen.. We need to look at providing the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team when they are fouled professionally in the act of trying to score a try.

 

[timka4]

Good point, the penalty and sin bin was sufficient at the time because there was no 100% guarantee that he would of scored although most people agree he would have had Cronk not interfered.

But had that happened with 4 seconds left like you said and they called the penalty and sin bin and not a penalty try, it would have been pretty outrageous as he was going to get there before Slater.
It would have definitely been another controversial finish regardless of which way the decision went if it had happened at the very end; and decided the match

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Good dilemma. I think it should still be the same penalty, ie sinbin. If the team leave it so late in the game to come up with that play, it is their fault.
Besides, they'll still get a tap and one tackle against 12 men.

 

[Stinkler]

Bill Harrigan has said it should have been a penalty try.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...k-hold-on-carney/story-e6frexv9-1226396023719


But Todd Carney disagrees!
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...star-todd-carney/story-e6frexv9-1226395511691

 

[Dresden Dan]

In light of last nights decision not to award a penalty try to Carney and instead send Cronk to the bin, it seems most agree the correct decision was made. However if the same thing happened with 10 seconds to go and QLD were up by 4 points, would we still have been happy? What about the dying stages of a GF? At this point the sin bin isn't an option so what happens? Does the video ref change his interpretation of the rule given the bin isn't an option and award the try, or does he disallow the try and allow a team to win a game through blatant and professional cheating?

It seems the ruling needs to be clarified or changed to avoid serious embarrassment to the game if this were to happen.. We need to look at providing the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team when they are fouled professionally in the act of trying to score a try.

Listening to the commentators, coaches, players & officials everyone in league thinks what Cronk did was the right thing to do even though as you say it was blatant and professional cheating. Just heap pressure on the referee by doing illegal tackles & spew when things don't go your way. Slater did same in Anzac match. The problem isn't fixed by the referees and rule changes.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

Bill Harrigan has said it should have been a penalty try.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...k-hold-on-carney/story-e6frexv9-1226396023719


But Todd Carney disagrees!
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...star-todd-carney/story-e6frexv9-1226395511691

Harrigan would have given it because it would have fed his ego to be talked about for years.

The quicker they punt him the better.

 

[Generalzod]

It should have been given a penalty try...

 

[Ozzy]

I had a bit of a laugh last night when on "NRL on Fox" Ben Ikin said (tongue in cheek) he couldn't see where Cronk had touched Carney (when they showed the replay).

 

[Danish]

I think that what Cronk did should be a penalty try every time, but how the rules are interpreted at the moment the ref made the right call on the night.

You need to be pretty much certain the player would have scored these days before they'll give a penalty try. Personally I think we are too strict on awarding penalty tries but that is the rules as they stand right.

Harrigan is just desperate to find an incorrect decision to point at after he was made to look the fool by not appointing these refs for game 1 in the first place.

 

[Valheru]

Excellent point by the OP. The 4 seconds to go scenario is exactly why I believe it should be a penalty try. To have a team win a GF, origin, world cup final etc. on the back of blatant cheating would be ridiculous. The fact that the attacking team has left it to the last 4 seconds is irrelevant.

 

[timka4]

Good dilemma. I think it should still be the same penalty, ie sinbin. If the team leave it so late in the game to come up with that play, it is their fault.
Besides, they'll still get a tap and one tackle against 12 men.

That shouldn't matter though, 79 minutes compared to anywhere from 1-70 minutes is still within the game time of 80 minutes it shouldnt matter how late or early it is. Interesting what Bill Harrigan had to say though

 

[Stinkler]

I actually like the Union rule for the penalty try.
It seems to revolve around foul play preventing someone who "probably" would have scored a try if the foul play didn't occur.

 

[Bgoodorgoodatit]

this^^^

the decision should be made on the blance of probability not the absolute certainty ruling that we currently have. it has been discussed numnerous times in other threads that nothing is ever certain.

changing it to the balance of probability would deter players from blantantly cheating to win a game, as they would know that the likelyhood of conceeding a penalty try would be much greater.

you cant condone people balatanly cheating to win

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

That shouldn't matter though, 79 minutes compared to anywhere from 1-70 minutes is still within the game time of 80 minutes it shouldnt matter how late or early it is.

Exactly what I'm saying. The same penalty should apply even if there's only 4 seconds left.

You're suggesting that the punishment for a foul should be different depending on how much time is left on the clock.

 

[hunters]

Geez, how many more arguments do you think we are going to have with a balance of probabilty ruling? If Slater was a foot closer, who wins the race? What is the decision then?

I am happy enough with the current ruling and it's not a problem in 99% of games. Player should at least have possession of the football and if he is then fouled in attempting to score, then it is a penalty try.

All these people who say he would have scored must not have watched the rest of the game! Taylor gave the perfect example of why you can't just assume a player would have scored before he has even got the ball.

 

[PaddyBoy]

How the hell can Harrigan say that was a penalty try? If Cronk disappeared there still would have been contest for the ball.

Do think the interpretation should be changed though (in which case it would have been a penalty try). Then bin a player if it was violent.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Some of these refs reviews these fools do are seriously flawed. Stuart Raper has also come up with some rubbish this season.

 

[Raider_69]

Your right, if there was only 20 seconds left in the game, that is awarded a penalty try. And i think thats the right call.
You cant have different rules and interpretations for different periods of the game, if its a penalty try in the 79th minute (and i dont think anyone believes it wouldnt have been) then it's got to be one in the 50th minute, or the 1st minute.

I dont believe the sin bin was the correct call.

 

[Danish]

All these people who say he would have scored must not have watched the rest of the game! Taylor gave the perfect example of why you can't just assume a player would have scored before he has even got the ball.

There have also been players who've dropped the ball cold over the line with no one around them when all they had to do was put it down.

Using your logic there would be no such thing as a penalty try.

 

[seanoff]

I dont believe the sin bin was the correct call.

WHAT??

that was exactly what the sin bin is for. the referee had no choice, he had to bin him, if he didn't he would have been dropped to several levels below NSW cup.

BTW if it wasn't a penalty try it was as close as without being one.