Doubt and Penalty Tries

[Guest]

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.

I wasn't refering to you in my first post in this thread, was refering to the first guy to respond to you.

[John Corey]

They got it 100% right. No way you could day carney would have beaten slater. Good call for once!

[Hawkeye]

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.

Spirit,
I guess the way to look at it is for a BOD its a try most likely (in all probabilty) has been scored without being able to clearly view it.

Where as Penalty try is a situation where a try has definately not been scored, but in all likelihood would have been scored except for the occurence of some foul play.
To me the two are quite cleary mutually exclusive.

[Spirit of 66]

Spirit,
I guess the way to look at it is for a BOD its a try most likely (in all probabilty) has been scored without being able to clearly view it.

Where as Penalty try is a situation where a try has definately not been scored, but in all likelihood would have been scored except for the occurence of some foul play.
To me the two are quite cleary mutually exclusive.

To me, it's the assessment of "probability" in both situations that I find inconsistent and odd. There is always doubt in either situation - in one, the benefit of this doubt is given to the attack and in the other it is not. There is a great deal of subjectivity in these decisions.

[Hawkeye]

To me, it's the assessment of "probability" in both situations that I find inconsistent and odd. There is always doubt in either situation - in one, the benefit of this doubt is given to the attack and in the other it is not. There is a great deal of subjectivity in these decisions.

I know what your saying, but who can ever be sure try would have been scored 100%.
Someone may get to a ball first (and thats where the onus on the penaltry try seems to end) but of course whos to say they may stuff up the grounding ... look at Taylor last night all he had to do was touch the ball lying in the goal area, and he managed to stuff it up.

So unless you take the penaltry try out of the rules (and I dont think you could do that) you have to go with "in all probabilty". But I still dont think you can try to correlate to BOD because one is for a try definatley not scored due to foul play, the other is a try most likely scored but you just can't clearly see it ..... I just think they're two different things which you cant draw a line through connecting both.

[player 1]

There is good evidence that a great many, if not most, tries scored come from penalties. Often given for the most subjective of reasons. Nonetheless, the "infringing" team is "punished" and very often 6 points go against their team for their indiscretion,

It stands to reason that for a blatant foul like Cronk's last night, the fact that he deliberately and directly and illegally hindered Carney's chances of grounding that ball for a try, is enough for a penalty try to be awarded. Benefit of any doubt should go WAY against the cheating infringer.

[Spirit of 66]

There is good evidence that a great many, if not most, tries scored come from penalties. Often given for the most subjective of reasons. Nonetheless, the "infringing" team is "punished" and very often 6 points go against their team for their indiscretion,

It stands to reason that for a blatant foul like Cronk's last night, the fact that he deliberately and directly and illegally hindered Carney's chances of grounding that ball for a try, is enough for a penalty try to be awarded. Benefit of any doubt should go WAY against the cheating infringer.

What he said ^^^.

But I think an earlier poster was right. I'm going to follow lawn bowls instead. I think I'd find a sport more satisfying if it didn't take the equivalent of a High Court ruling to work out who scores and who doesn't.

[player 1]

What he said ^^^.

But I think an earlier poster was right. I'm going to follow lawn bowls instead. I think I'd find a sport more satisfying if it didn't take the equivalent of a High Court ruling to work out who scores and who doesn't.

My wife played lawn bowls as a school sport at the local bowling club in Parkes. It was fun she tells me, but they did worry that the old codgers might be looking up their dresses as they bowled

[roosterproud]

it should of been a penality try

if cronk did this in the out field he would have been penalized, sent of as a professional fowl. should have been an 8 pointer

[Hawkeye]

it should of been a penality try

if cronk did this in the out field he would have been penalized, sent of as a professional fowl. should have been an 8 pointer

Penalty try is not worth 8 points, they are two different scenarios. Eight point try is for a foul after a try has been scored, the penalty try is only worth a maximum of 6 points

[Guest]

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.

Yeah, I brought this up in another thread yesterday, it's a real anomaly in my book, but I also don't like the BoD rule being 80-90% in the attacking players favour, groundings need to be groundings with downward pressure & control over the ball, a try needs to be earned, not given lightly to a player who has a fingernail touching the ball!

[Kingbilly]

I look at the differences being

BOD - the referees think he has scored a try
PEn try - the referees think he would have

NOt a bad discussion point though.

I tend to agree with the decision on Wed night and maybe if the ball had been stationery on the ground it may have been a different result.

The best example I think of a penalty try was in the 1999 GF between Melb and Stg

[player 1]

I compare it to umpires and LBW decisions. If the batsman attempts a genuine stroke, a lot of conditions have to be satisfied to be given out. The point of impact has to be between wicket and wicket. If it hits the pad outside the line, he can't be given out even if the umpire thinks it would have hit the stumps. If he does not play a shot, the point of impact does not have to be in line and, at least in the days before video reviews, the umpire would be more likely to decide him out (reverse benefit of doubt would apply).

Cronk's professional foul was of the worst kind, extremely unsportsmanlike, and I don't get why anyone would want to give any benefit of doubt to such a play. Dodgy tries are awarded all the time by intoxicated video refs. After such a foul play I think "he looked like he would score" is enough to award a penalty try.

But I do appreciate our referees have no intelligence, judgement or feel for the game.