In my opinion, it should have been a penalty try. My opinion is in no way reflective of whether or not a try should have been awarded in the greater context of the season. Based upon previous similar situations ( apart from the ridiculous decision the Roosters received against the Sharks this year ), there was no way a penalty try was going to be awarded.
It annoys me a bit, a penalty try would have been a fair result, Gidley was going to score, and the 6 points was a fair penalty for such an infringement. The Referees treat a penalty try like the death penalty. A penalty try should not be treated in such a manner, it should be retribution/ equity based on the fact that a professional foul occurred when a player was in the act of attempting to score.
I find the requirements for awarding a penalty try ridiculous. It should be something like: If in the process of attempting to score a try, a professional foul occurs by the defensive side, and there is sufficient likelihood of a try being prevented by that foul, then a penalty try should be awarded.
A refresh of the tackle count or a shot at goal is nowhere near sufficient to either balance the ledger between the sides, or to create a deterrent to stop players from committing fouls in the future.
The fact is that like scrummaging, penalty trys are far too controversial to have a referee take the wrap for a bad decision. A bit of backbone from the officials would be nice.
Last night we witnessed the Warriors commit a professional foul on a number of occasions in order to slow the dogs down. Each time it had the desired effect, the warriors reformed their line, and the dogs lost the ball. It was rather ironic to me, because the bulldogs have a tendency to do the same thing. I would like to see both the Sin Bin and the Penalty Try used far more frequently for such incidents, otherwise it will become a league wide coaching technique, if it already hasnt.
The net effect to the game as negligible, however summed together with the no try penalty decision for Anthony Quin who wasnt even in the shot to make a decision, I walked out of the room in disgust, not because I am a sore loser, but because I thought the decision was totally and utterly influenced by TV commentators, who I am sure are piped thru to the referees box, no matter how much they deny it. The player may well have been offside, but where is the evidence to prove that, and why wasnt the benefit of the doubt given to the attacking side.
In summary the officiating ruined an otherwise flawless display from the Roosters, it reminded me greatly of the demolition the Knights put on Parramatta in 2001. They will win back to back, and deservedly so.
