Doubt and Penalty Tries

[Spirit of 66]

Am I right in assuming that the "benefit of the doubt" concept does not apply when it comes to awarding penalty tries? The referee last night said that, before a penalty try could be awarded, it needed to be certain that Carney would have got to the ball before Slater.

Well maybe it wasn't certain. It looked like he had a bloody good chance of getting to the ball, but I concede that there was doubt. (He might, for example, have had an epileptic fit at that moment or have been hit by a meteorite.)

So why should this be so? Why should that dodgy try by Wallace on Sunday be given the benefit of the doubt, but not Carney?

[Pass the Ball]

I hate to say it Spirit, but Wallace's try would have been no try in origin and Carney's would have been a penalty try most weekends against us...

[Guest]

There are already too many vague rules. I don't mind it being a clear-cut interpretation.

[Guest]

I think you kind of answered your own question. Benefit of the doubt as applied to a penalty try is a completely different thing to your normal BOD try. That is, there can be no doubt in the case of a penalty try which is almost impossible to prove which is why they are rarely given. Very similar to a protest in horse racing, they rarely get upheld because its almost impossible to say the horse definitely would have won without the interference.
Your standard BOD try is a different thing, thats just an interpretation that came in during the video ref era where if it looks like they probably scored but you cant say for sure then it should be given a try. I dunno why they have to call it a BOD try - its either a try or not. Putting up BOD on the screen is just some weird ass covering device for the video ref.
We have had numerous tries disallowed this year that should have been given - tries that looked like they probably were tries but were disallowed because there wasn't conclusive proof. Shoulda been clear cut tries under the BOD interpretation. Very frustrating.

[Guest]

It may well have been given if it was a race for a ball on the ground. Because of the high bouncing ball, Slater gets hands on the ball first, and who knows if Todd would have even grounded the ball from that height. No try, correct call.

[bondi-boy]

Blues scored two tries while Cronk was off the field in the sin bin?

Cronk lost the match for Qld...simple.

He's no JT or Lockyer...not even close...and if he can't play better than he has been and/or loses any SOO matches again he should be sent packing, bye bye.

[Spirit of 66]

Blues scored two tries while Cronk was off the field in the sin bin?

Cronk lost the match for Qld...simple.

He's no JT or Lockyer...not even close...and if he can't play better than he has been and/or loses any SOO matches again he should be sent packing, bye bye.

True. But the point of my post is this apparent inconsistency in the rules. BOD tries are awarded when there is very little evidence of the try being scored, but penalty tries demand absolute certainty.

[stephenj]

there will always be inconsistancy when a rule is open to any mans interpretation! thats just the way it is, if you dont like it, follow lawn bowls insteawd of footy?

[Guest]

I hate to say it Spirit, but Wallace's try would have been no try in origin and Carney's would have been a penalty try most weekends against us...

Hahaha it only took 1 response in this thread to refer back to the roosters and how they are always ''ripped off''.

[witty92]

Hahaha it only took 1 response in this thread to refer back to the roosters and how they are always ''ripped off''.

do you have accounts on all other supporters forums??? gee, the bitterness that must come from never having seen your team win a premiership, first Rothfield and now cowboymad, i don't know why you losers want to take it out on us so badly, it's not our fault your team has been so average the past 17 years.

[Guest]

do you have accounts on all other supporters forums??? gee, the bitterness that must come from never having seen your team win a premiership, first Rothfield and now cowboymad, i don't know why you losers want to take it out on us so badly, it's not our fault your team has been so average the past 17 years.

I'm so very very very bitter....Lol. I didn't know most of you roosters can't read. For the 101st time, I don't mind the roosters and some of their young players they have coming through. But the jibberish written on here by some delusional fans like yourself is quite amusing.

[ism22]

How can absolute certainty ever exist when something hasn't even happened? It can't!!!!

Given the freakish nature of many try saves (and the sheer stupidity of many bombed tries e.g. Souffs last season against us dropping the ball in goal with no defenders within cooee), you can never be ABSOLUTELY certain that a try would have been scored unless it actually was scored.

---

IMO The rule should be more:
***If there's a send-off offence within the goal area or within the 20, it's an instant try as punishment.***

In ANY situation where a player has physically touched the person who could have scored a try it's possible that they could have done so legally instead of illegally (and prevented the try in that manner.)

It's a punishment for cheating somebody out of a try OPPORTUNITY, not an "if only _____ had happened" prediction. Refs aren't psychic...

[Spirit of 66]

I'm so very very very bitter....Lol. I didn't know most of you roosters can't read. For the 101st time, I don't mind the roosters and some of their young players they have coming through. But the jibberish written on here by some delusional fans like yourself is quite amusing.

And I don't mind North Queensland. It's quite nice (although Townsville is a bit of a hole - sort of like Mt Druitt by the sea.)

But that's all beside the point I was making.

[Spirit of 66]

there will always be inconsistancy when a rule is open to any mans interpretation! thats just the way it is, if you dont like it, follow lawn bowls insteawd of footy?

I think the point here is that there are two rules that are unacceptably inconsistent in my view.

But thanks for the tip on lawn bowls. Does Ben Cummins have anything to do with that sport? If not, I might investigate it.

[Spirit of 66]

How can absolute certainty ever exist when something hasn't even happened? It can't!!!!

Given the freakish nature of many try saves (and the sheer stupidity of many bombed tries e.g. Souffs last season against us dropping the ball in goal with no defenders within cooee), you can never be ABSOLUTELY certain that a try would have been scored unless it actually was scored.

---

IMO The rule should be more:
***If there's a send-off offence within the goal area or within the 20, it's an instant try as punishment.***

In ANY situation where a player has physically touched the person who could have scored a try it's possible that they could have done so legally instead of illegally (and prevented the try in that manner.)

It's a punishment for cheating somebody out of a try OPPORTUNITY, not an "if only _____ had happened" prediction. Refs aren't psychic...

I agree with you.