The penalty try rule

[Mr Saab]

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.

I dont have a problem with players being binned for pro fouls....like when a player makes a break and is held down for too long.
I cant justify giving a try that no one can guarantee it would be a try and 10 mins. T
The attacking team is getting a bonus for being given the try.

 

[Danish]

I dont have a problem with players being binned for pro fouls....like when a player makes a break and is held down for too long.
I cant justify giving a try that no one can guarantee it would be a try and 10 mins. T
The attacking team is getting a bonus for being given the try.

Thats not an answer to my question.

Why does a player who commits a professional foul anywhere else on the field deserve to stay off the field for 10 mins, regardless of how many times the opposition scores, while a player committing a professional foul in the ingoal gets to stay on the field with only a 6 point penalty?

To me, if we don't bin players when awarding a penalty try then it is only logical that we allow binned players to come back on as soon as the opposition scores a single try.

Essentially like how ice hockey works their penalty system

 

[Raider_69]

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.

Quite simple. IMO is was a slam dunk penalty try. And as far as i know (and i could be wrong) its either one or the other. As said in my post, if it would be ruled a penalty try in the 79th minute (and it would have been) then it should have been ruled a penalty try on that occasion.

The ruling should have imo, been penalty try and Cronk stays on the field.
Instead they rule no try and cronk was sin binned.

I think they got it wrong.

 

[seanoff]

Quite simple. IMO is was a slam dunk penalty try. And as far as i know (and i could be wrong) its either one or the other. As said in my post, if it would be ruled a penalty try in the 79th minute (and it would have been) then it should have been ruled a penalty try on that occasion.

The ruling should have imo, been penalty try and Cronk stays on the field.
Instead they rule no try and cronk was sin binned.

I think they got it wrong.

fair enough. i think it's both tho tbh.

if you get done for a professional try stopping foul and it's awarded as a penalty try, tough shit. take your medicine.

 

[hunters]

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.

You've missed my point. All im saying is that a player needs to at least get the ball for a penalty try to be awarded. Not sure when the last one was awarded where this wasn't the case (for all those saying penalty try every day of the week)

 

[Card Shark]

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

Agree. Carney was checked twice by Cronk & arrived slightly before Slater.

He would have picked it up under minimal pressure from Slater & grounded it.

Can't use Dave Taylor as an example, he's a 2nd rower that thinks he's a half but is a 2nd rower.

 

[Stinkler]

@Card Shark: So now the referee has to judge the player's skill level before deciding on the penalty try?


I still reckon that a penalty try should be awarded if the player was a CHANCE of scoring the try if there was no illegal play.

 

[Canard]

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.

But it can be both now surely?

This overlap bullshit it ridiculous a 12 man defensive line can be busted by means other than a f**king overlap, it could be tired defense, people out of there natural position etc.

 

[Cheops]

Should have been a penalty try although as a NSW fan, it probably ended up better this way. Slater only just gets fingertips to the ball despite Cronk riding Carney for a good 5 metres. There's nothing in the rulebook about being 100% certain of a try being scored and I wish that myth would go away. The penalty try in the 2008 World Cup final had much more doubt imo (and that was also the correct call)

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.

The Hayne break came straight off the back of a poor kick by QLD. There's a fair argument that QLD would have got a better kick away with Cronk on the field.

 

[Danish]

You've missed my point. All im saying is that a player needs to at least get the ball for a penalty try to be awarded. Not sure when the last one was awarded where this wasn't the case (for all those saying penalty try every day of the week)

World cup final 2008 and roosters vs warriors semi-final 2008 are 2 off the top of my head.

I'm struggling to think of a penalty try that has been awarded in the last decade when the player DID have possession of the ball tbh