The penalty try rule

[Danish]

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.

Even with Cronk blatantly dragging Carney back Slater only beat him to the ball by the slightest of margins. Without the interference Carney would have won the race to the ball easily.

The only reason Slater was anywhere near the ball to make it a contest was because of Cronk's deliberate cheating.

thats a penalty try every day of the week IMO

 

[sharknows]

I can't see how that wasn't awarded a penalty try. Carney still arrived at the ball just before Slater despite the attention from Cronk. In fact Slater also went for Carney off the ball which was the only reason he couldn't ground it. The decision was a cop out from the refs.

 

[Kid]

It should have been a penalty try. Wally Lewis in the commentary said in his opinion there was no doubt Carney would have won the race to the ball and grounded it.

To all those saying you don't know for sure that he would have grounded it, you could say that ANY time a penalty try is awarded. Go back to the GF between Saints and Melbourne. Even though the Melbourne winger did have control of the ball.....who is to say an inch from the ground it doesn't slip from his grasp?
I guess, deep down it will always come back to personal opinion, therefore the decision to not award a penalty try will always be one that is open for interpretation.

 

[gronkathon]

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.

 

[skeepe]

It's one of those decisions that could have gone either way and you'd still be happy with the result I think.

I don't think it was a penalty try, and I don't think you'll find a NSW supporter anywhere that denies that the decision that was made was more beneficial to them in the long run.

 

[Canard]

I reckon it should have been a penalty try.

The issue about rule clarification is sort of on the wrong track, the rule exists it just how its intrepreted by the officials.

Whether it applies to the first minute or last minutes is the same for any sin binnable offence, not just penalty tries.

 

[timka4]

I don't think it was a penalty try, and I don't think you'll find a NSW supporter anywhere that denies that the decision that was made was more beneficial to them in the long run.

Carney stepped through the forwards who were condensed anyway and not spread out. Hayne made a small break through a jagged kick chase and ran at Thurston who was a little further back. Our tries didnt come from spreading the ball wide or catching them a number down.

It affected QLD mentally and boosted NSW spirits.

 

[timka4]

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.

I wasnt saying it should be different, I'm saying it would be different.
I guarantee the video ref would have called penalty try if it was at the end of the game.

After some of the comments and the situations that have been bought up, a penalty try might have been sufficient after all.

 

[jonno_knights]

Easy Solution, make it a penalty try AND a sin-binning for professional fouls committed in the In-goal area.

That would discourage people for trying to cheat. NSW could have easily ended up with only the 2 points in that 10-minute period. Both their tries weren't exactly scored through QLD being a player down, they were through poor defence (on Carney) and a bit of luck (Hayne). Not an overlap like with NSW in game 1.

 

[DIOGENES]

What I don't get is the difference between a penalty try and an 8 point try. As i understand it and unless the rules have changed - if you do an offence that stops a certain try, a penalty try is awarded with the conversion in front BUT if a try is scored and you commited an offence the other team gets the try and 2 conversions one of which is in front. For fairness I think a penalty try should be given the 2 conversion attempts

 

[Saint69]

Is it possible that if the referee was confident Carney would have scored that he could not only award the penalty try and also send Cronk to the bin for the illegal play.

 

[firechild]

Is it possible that if the referee was confident Carney would have scored that he could not only award the penalty try and also send Cronk to the bin for the illegal play.

That's what I think too. It would be within the rules for a ref to award the penalty try AND sin-bin Cronk but Harrigan's view is that it is one of the other. What that means though is from Cronk's perspective Carney is going to score if he does nothing, at worst it'll be a penalty try which is the same result, at best he'll get 10 in the bin, save the try and he can back his side to defend the 10min. The best way to ensure this type of thing doesn't happen is to award the penalty try AND give him 10 in the bin.

 

[Kiwi]

Should have been a penalty try for sure, all he had to do was dive on it really to score. Sure he could have fumbled it, but who wouldn't have backed him to score that?

I guess what they had to decide though is was it worth a penalty try and a sin bin? I say no, but if they had awarded a penalty try they would have still had to bin Cronk and it's not an offense worthy of both.

 

[Kiwi]

That's what I think too. It would be within the rules for a ref to award the penalty try AND sin-bin Cronk but Harrigan's view is that it is one of the other. What that means though is from Cronk's perspective Carney is going to score if he does nothing, at worst it'll be a penalty try which is the same result, at best he'll get 10 in the bin, save the try and he can back his side to defend the 10min. The best way to ensure this type of thing doesn't happen is to award the penalty try AND give him 10 in the bin.

Make penalty tries worth more points, make a penalty try an 8 point try. Cronk definatly didn't deserve both a penalty try and 10 in the bin. Blues would have to be happy with the 10 in the bin though, they got 12 points out of it instead of 6.

The way I see it, 8 points for a penalty try and if you commit an offence that gets you put on report as well, then 10 in the bin to go with it.

 

[jonno_knights]

What I don't get is the difference between a penalty try and an 8 point try. As i understand it and unless the rules have changed - if you do an offence that stops a certain try, a penalty try is awarded with the conversion in front BUT if a try is scored and you commited an offence the other team gets the try and 2 conversions one of which is in front. For fairness I think a penalty try should be given the 2 conversion attempts

I agree, as a penalty try has to be seen as a "100% Definite" try the attacking side gets no advantage from an illegal play by the opposition.

Awarding the try to Carney wednesday could have seen the advantage as he was yet to gain control of the ball, and could have easily juggled it.

And the only advantage of a PT is you get the conversion from in front, which wouldn't have made a difference Wednesday as it was a gimme shot.

I think the rules should be:

Penalty Try = Potential 8-point try with both conversion attempts from where the try would have been scored, as the illegal play was BEFORE the try being scored.

and the current potential 8-point try stays as is, as the illegal play is AFTER the try being scored, meaning the second conversion is from in front.

 

[clarency]

That's a minority situation, and while it would really suck... the rules are the rules.

Think of Ghana v Uruguay in the 2010 World Cup. Ghana shot at a clear goal only to be stopped by a Uruguay handball. The player got sent off but the penalty in front missed. Uruguay went on to win the penalty shot out.

Ghana had every right to win that game, but because the other team broke the rules, they lost.

It sucks, but it happens.

When it starts happening often, then you can talk about changing the rules.

 

[Mr Saab]

The way I see it, 8 points for a penalty try and if you commit an offence that gets you put on report as well, then 10 in the bin to go with it.

That is way too harsh a penalty. You cant give them a penaly try AND 10 in the bin.

 

[firechild]

That is way too harsh a penalty. You cant give them a penaly try AND 10 in the bin.

How so? The try was going to be scored anyway so a penalty that is equal to the alternate result is hardly a penalty. The penalty try makes up for the try that was going to be scored anyway, the sin bin is punishment for the deliberate infringement. If the penalty is harsh then it will act as a good deterrent.

 

[Mr Saab]

I just feel (IMO) that the penalty try is enough. 10 mins in the bin is a massive penalty to go on top of the penalty try

 

[Danish]

I just feel (IMO) that the penalty try is enough. 10 mins in the bin is a massive penalty to go on top of the penalty try

If so, then what is your justification for a binned player having to serve the full 10 minutes regardless of how many tries are scored during that time?

If awarding a single try is enough to negate a professional foul in a try scoring situation, then it should be enough to negate any remaining time a binned player has left should the opposition score while he is off the field.