Bill Harrigan = WHAT A JOKE

[Andrew Walker]

Tim Mander was on the Game Plan last night and said he would have given "no try" but when he heard that Hollywood had said he would have given it, qualified that by saying it was also 'a matter of individual opinion'.

And here was I thinking they were meant to ref by the rule book as it's written.

It's when 'individual opinion' overrides the rules of the game that the issues arise. And unfortunately that's what's happening this year - the rules are taking a backseat to individuals' opinions.

NC

Unfortunately many rules of the game now are open to conjecture of ones opinion This particular incident is one of these My two cents worth was should have been given a penalty try

[Guest]

Tim Mander was on the Game Plan last night and said he would have given "no try" but when he heard that Hollywood had said he would have given it, qualified that by saying it was also 'a matter of individual opinion'.

And here was I thinking they were meant to ref by the rule book as it's written.

It's when 'individual opinion' overrides the rules of the game that the issues arise. And unfortunately that's what's happening this year - the rules are taking a backseat to individuals' opinions.

NC

A little difficult when the actual law relating to a Penalty Try specifically states it is in the "opinion" of the referee.

"The referee may award a penalty try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team."

Just as fans see the outcome differently so too can referees.

[Danish]

It should have been a penalty try.

As someone on leagueunlimited rightfully pointed out, had that happened in the 80th minute of the game, would the same ruling have been made knowing that it would essentially mean that Cronk won QLD the game based on a professional foul?

Carney was odds on to score had he not been impeded. Slater only beat him to the ball by inches and that was with Cronk holding onto Carney for a good 5m. Without Cronk's interference Carney would have got to the ball uncontested.

Penalty tries should be given on the balance of probabilities, not this ridiculous "we must be 100% certain he'd have scored" nonsense. Look at the World Cup in 2008 as a great example of a penalty try for essentially the same exact infringement.

[Spirit of 66]

Maybe if the Roosters players learnt how to TACKLE they might win more games instead of blaming refs.

You mean like this?

Play on.jpg

[chook 56]

You mean like this?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]769[/ATTACH]

Nothing to see here....move along.

[Guest]

Sorry NSW fans, but you cannot give that a penalty try.

Would Carney have gotten their first? Probably.

Could you say that to a 100 % certainty? No.

Could you say he wouldn't have knocked it on to a 100 % certainty? No.

The referee has to be 100 % sure a try would have been scored. The most famous incident which cost the Dragqueens the 1999 grand final is the best exapmle of what was a penalty try because Craig Smith had caught the ball and was 1m from putting it down before being clobbered.

I can understand your frustration because Carney was probably 95 % likely to score it.

But it was 100 % the correct decision (and in the end probably won you the game anyhow after scoring two tries against 12 men).

[Guest]

Sorry NSW fans, but you cannot give that a penalty try.

Would Carney have gotten their first? Probably.

Could you say that to a 100 % certainty? No.

Could you say he wouldn't have knocked it on to a 100 % certainty? No.

The referee has to be 100 % sure a try would have been scored. The most famous incident which cost the Dragqueens the 1999 grand final is the best exapmle of what was a penalty try because Craig Smith had caught the ball and was 1m from putting it down before being clobbered.

I can understand your frustration because Carney was probably 95 % likely to score it.

But it was 100 % the correct decision (and in the end probably won you the game anyhow after scoring two tries against 12 men).

Spot on.

[Chook Norris]

Sorry NSW fans, but you cannot give that a penalty try.

Would Carney have gotten their first? Probably.

Could you say that to a 100 % certainty? No.

Could you say he wouldn't have knocked it on to a 100 % certainty? No.

As soon as you said that, you lost any credibility.

In that case there should have never ever been a penalty try in the history of rugby league.

I'm not going to even bother properly explaining because that's just simply rubbish that you believe there must be 100% certainty before a try is given. Nothing is ever 100% certain in Rugby League when u have so many forces and factors in play. I don't believe u could possibly say with 100% certainty that Craig Smith would've scored either.. so i don't believe that it was given due to 100% certainty but rather it was very very likely that he would've scored

[Guest]

As soon as you said that, you lost any credibility.

In that case there should have never ever been a penalty try in the history of rugby league.

I'm not going to even bother properly explaining because that's just simply rubbish that you believe there must be 100% certainty before a try is given. Nothing is ever 100% certain in Rugby League when u have so many forces and factors in play. I don't believe u could possibly say with 100% certainty that Craig Smith would've scored either.. so i don't believe that it was given due to 100% certainty but rather it was very very likely that he would've scored

As I said previously. If the ball was on the ground they probably give the try. Because it is a high bouncing ball, even if Slater is not there it was a tough ball to ground. No penalty try.

The try awarded to St George was as clear cut as they come.

[Guest]

As soon as you said that, you lost any credibility.

In that case there should have never ever been a penalty try in the history of rugby league.

I'm not going to even bother properly explaining because that's just simply rubbish that you believe there must be 100% certainty before a try is given. Nothing is ever 100% certain in Rugby League when u have so many forces and factors in play. I don't believe u could possibly say with 100% certainty that Craig Smith would've scored either.. so i don't believe that it was given due to 100% certainty but rather it was very very likely that he would've scored

That's the rule though mate.

All Craig Smith had to do was fall over. It was a certain try.

Todd Carney still had to get to the ball first and pick it up.

You can't give it a try, even if it was likely he would have scored.

[Guest]

Seems to me that Bill Harrigan is just giving the ref's more breathing space with their interpretations/calls on the rules of the game to cover all their asses,so both calls are correct now and just comes down to opinion,all bases are covered.

[Chook Norris]

That's the rule though mate.

Is it though mate? Where in the rule book does it support what you are saying? I've had a look at the Rugby League rule book and i have not yet seen any terms that specify what you are suggesting at all

This is the entire section on penalty trys

take from page 13 of the book.

Section 6(d) - The Referee may award a penalty try if, in his
opinion, a try would have been scored but for the
unfair play of the defending team. A penalty try is
awarded between the goal posts irrespective of
where the offence occurred.

As far as i can see, that means penalty trys are subject to interpretation and the likelihood of a player scoring. The fact that you mentioned that Carney would've scored with 95% certainty is enough grounds to suggest that he would have indeed scored a try. If 95% certainty is still not enough then the world is not rational

still searching through the whole book using ctrl + f and no mention of any terms that say "certainty" "doubt" with regards to penalty trys

[Guest]

Harrigan can't not be the centre of attention.

[Guest]

Is it though mate? Where in the rule book does it support what you are saying? I've had a look at the Rugby League rule book and i have not yet seen any terms that specify what you are suggesting at all

This is the entire section on penalty trys

take from page 13 of the book.


As far as i can see, that means penalty trys are subject to interpretation and the likelihood of a player scoring. The fact that you mentioned that Carney would've scored with 95% certainty is enough grounds to suggest that he would have indeed scored a try. If 95% certainty is still not enough then the world is not rational

still searching through the whole book using ctrl + f and no mention of any terms that say "certainty" "doubt" with regards to penalty trys

Fair enough mate. I'm happy to concede you are right based on that. Coming through the ref ranks (albeit 10 years ago now) we had it drilled into us about the 100 % thing. Maybe the rule has changed recently?

In any case, I still think the right call was made, even if it was down to the ref's opinion.

[Guest]

Is it though mate? Where in the rule book does it support what you are saying? I've had a look at the Rugby League rule book and i have not yet seen any terms that specify what you are suggesting at all

This is the entire section on penalty trys

take from page 13 of the book.


As far as i can see, that means penalty trys are subject to interpretation and the likelihood of a player scoring. The fact that you mentioned that Carney would've scored with 95% certainty is enough grounds to suggest that he would have indeed scored a try. If 95% certainty is still not enough then the world is not rational

still searching through the whole book using ctrl + f and no mention of any terms that say "certainty" "doubt" with regards to penalty trys

As the rule states, in the referees opinion. Isn't that enough for everyone? I mean Clarks opinion was no penalty try, Harrigans is try and Mander is no try. Its all down to an opinion, and everyone has one.