Jump to content

Penalty try


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Derwent said:

Wouldn’t have mattered if Yaha wasn’t such a big useless lump. A decent winger would have been horizontal by the time Makinson got there and scored anyway.

Victim blaming?

  • Haha 1

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


9 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

And that's the point isn't it - it is a matter of interpretation, which is what referees are for. Whether we always agree with their judgements is actually irrelevant.

Indeed. Penalty try decisions are probably the most subjective decisions in the game as the law actually states that it is their opinion.

The ref and video ref went with their opinion and I am not saying they were bias (or worse), just stating my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Victim blaming?

No, just pointing out that he is a rubbish winger, the type favoured by some SL coaches due to their size but with very little pace or agility. 

I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's arguable that Yaha would have made it to the line but Makinson's arm hitting his head was the difference between him (Yaha) being pushed into touch or not therefore, it should have been a penalty try.

I also believe Maloney deserved some kind of retaliation, a penalty against him, ideally (when Matautia punched him) because he used the elbow/forearm initially but normally a retaliatory clean punch is punished with a sending off, (or at least a sin-bin).

While we're at it, what about Maloney's kick to touch being batted back into play by a man who's foot touched the ground (out of play) before swatting the ball back onto the field.

Oh and (here's one for unapologetic pedant) what about the last minute ruling against Tompkins for an incorrect 'play the ball'? There were scores of ''roll-balls'' throughout the game, but with minutes to go, suddenly it's a crucially important skill/rule (which just had to be enforced).

I was disappointed with the standard of refereeing and I believe Catalans had the worst of it.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

Ian Smith shares the decision, maybe it's the fans who are wrong.

 

 

Ian Smith’s view is nonsense. The only person capable of making a tackle to prevent the try committed a foul, stopping an otherwise certain try. To hypothesise on what he might otherwise have done instead of fouling a player to prevent a try is the first step to madness… no foul would ever be given if we allowed the “yes, but if he hadn’t fouled him it would have been fair play” alternate hypothesis

 

Absolute comedy of a decision, and ridiculous later justification 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fighting irish said:

I think it's arguable that Yaha would have made it to the line but Makinson's arm hitting his head was the difference between him (Yaha) being pushed into touch or not therefore, it should have been a penalty try.

I also believe Maloney deserved some kind of retaliation, a penalty against him, ideally (when Matautia punched him) because he used the elbow/forearm initially but normally a retaliatory clean punch is punished with a sending off, (or at least a sin-bin).

While we're at it, what about Maloney's kick to touch being batted back into play by a man who's foot touched the ground (out of play) before swatting the ball back onto the field.

Oh and (here's one for unapologetic pedant) what about the last minute ruling against Tompkins for an incorrect 'play the ball'? There were scores of ''roll-balls'' throughout the game, but with minutes to go, suddenly it's a crucially important skill/rule (which just had to be enforced).

I was disappointed with the standard of refereeing and I believe Catalans had the worst of it.

 

He wasn't punished for roll ball you have to gain your feet and be in control to play the ball.

Don't play the ball unless your set, if the defender is messing around the ref will call a pen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

He wasn't punished for roll ball you have to gain your feet and be in control to play the ball.

Don't play the ball unless your set, if the defender is messing around the ref will call a pen. 

Actually, you have to gain your feet, be in control and play the ball with your foot.

But hey, that's only the laws of the game.

The point is that punishing any offence at the play the ball is the height of irony when 99.9% of them are illegal. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

He wasn't punished for roll ball you have to gain your feet and be in control to play the ball.

Don't play the ball unless your set, if the defender is messing around the ref will call a pen. 

  And lift the ball off the floor.You cant  put your hand on the ball while it is still on the ground and play it backwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

Actually, you have to gain your feet, be in control and play the ball with your foot.

But hey, that's only the laws of the game.

The point is that punishing any offence at the play the ball is the height of irony when 99.9% of them are illegal. 

Attempt to play the ball with your foot I believe. 

Perhaps it is ironic but the refs have been consistent with this all season and that’s the most important thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DoubleD said:

Attempt to play the ball with your foot I believe. 

Perhaps it is ironic but the refs have been consistent with this all season and that’s the most important thing. 

No, the laws say play it with the foot.

Regain feet (b) The tackled player shall without delay regain his feet where he was tackled, lift the ball clear of the ground, face his opponent’s goal line and drop or place the ball on the ground in front of his foremost foot.

Play with foot (e) When the ball touches the ground it must be heeled (i.e. backwards) by the tackled player. The ball must not be kicked or heeled by the player marking him. The ball is in play when it has been played backward.

We just said attempt to play it with the foot as we started to erode the laws of the game and now of course the 'guidelines' don't include any mention of playing it with the foot as long as there is balance and control. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

 

Regain feet (b) The tackled player shall without delay regain his feet where he was tackled, lift the ball clear of the ground, face his opponent’s goal line and drop or place the ball on the ground in front of his foremost foot.

 

Is there any possibility whatsoever that if a player chose the drop option that they wouldn't be pinged for a knock on? It would presumably then become a penalty should they choose to question the refs knowledge of the rules!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, north yorks trinity said:

Is there any possibility whatsoever that if a player chose the drop option that they wouldn't be pinged for a knock on? It would presumably then become a penalty should they choose to question the refs knowledge of the rules!

Every possibility.  In fact a certainty. 

It's one of the by-products of not following any of the laws any more that if someone actually does do what is written in the laws, they will be penalised. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

Is there any possibility whatsoever that if a player chose the drop option that they wouldn't be pinged for a knock on? It would presumably then become a penalty should they choose to question the refs knowledge of the rules!

No which is why quoting laws is pretty pointless as a lot of the time the refs have been given an interpretation that is very different. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, fighting irish said:

I think it's arguable that Yaha would have made it to the line but Makinson's arm hitting his head was the difference between him (Yaha) being pushed into touch or not therefore, it should have been a penalty try.

I also believe Maloney deserved some kind of retaliation, a penalty against him, ideally (when Matautia punched him) because he used the elbow/forearm initially but normally a retaliatory clean punch is punished with a sending off, (or at least a sin-bin).

While we're at it, what about Maloney's kick to touch being batted back into play by a man who's foot touched the ground (out of play) before swatting the ball back onto the field.

Oh and (here's one for unapologetic pedant) what about the last minute ruling against Tompkins for an incorrect 'play the ball'? There were scores of ''roll-balls'' throughout the game, but with minutes to go, suddenly it's a crucially important skill/rule (which just had to be enforced).

I was disappointed with the standard of refereeing and I believe Catalans had the worst of it.

 

What about the knees to the head from Yaha or the early high shot by Garcia on Lomax, under the current rules both are yellow card offences but both went unpunished. Tomkins was playing for a penalty and rightly penalised. Makinson contact was originally on the arm and momentum plus Yaha falling had an influence on where Makinson ended up. Penalty yes, penalty try never as he was going out from the original contact. Yellow harsh given that Garcia got away with one. Both teams can point to decisions that went against them in the game but unfortunately Guasch has thrown his toys out of his pram 

FB_IMG_1633895508729.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hullste said:

Penalty yes, penalty try never as he was going out from the original contact.

You can't say that though. The tackle was a foul and so for the decision on the penalty try you have to discount the tackle and say what would the outcome have been if that foul hadn't taken place.

You can't split the tackle into two parts, the fair part and the foul part.

Take Makinson out of that play (as his was the foul play) and you need to make a decision on whether the try would have been scored.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

You can't say that though. The tackle was a foul and so for the decision on the penalty try you have to discount the tackle and say what would the outcome have been if that foul hadn't taken place.

You can't split the tackle into two parts, the fair part and the foul part.

Take Makinson out of that play (as his was the foul play) and you need to make a decision on whether the try would have been scored.

No foul he scores. Penalty try.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, hullste said:

What about the knees to the head from Yaha or the early high shot by Garcia on Lomax, under the current rules both are yellow card offences but both went unpunished. Tomkins was playing for a penalty and rightly penalised. Makinson contact was originally on the arm and momentum plus Yaha falling had an influence on where Makinson ended up. Penalty yes, penalty try never as he was going out from the original contact. Yellow harsh given that Garcia got away with one. Both teams can point to decisions that went against them in the game but unfortunately Guasch has thrown his toys out of his pram 

FB_IMG_1633895508729.jpg

This shows the beginnings of Makinson sliding over the top. Had he not grabbed the head of Yaha he would have crawled over the line IMO. It was a foul and no one else is in the frame.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Scubby said:

This shows the beginnings of Makinson sliding over the top. Had he not grabbed the head of Yaha he would have crawled over the line IMO. It was a foul and no one else is in the frame.

The photo also shows that his body is going towards the touch line from the original contact. It is not 100% certain that he wouldn't have gone into touch so can't give a penalty try. The only penalty trys I see given is when a player is already over the line when the foul play is committed. It was reviewed by the video ref and he agreed with the ref. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hullste said:

The photo also shows that his body is going towards the touch line from the original contact. It is not 100% certain that he wouldn't have gone into touch so can't give a penalty try. The only penalty trys I see given is when a player is already over the line when the foul play is committed. It was reviewed by the video ref and he agreed with the ref. 

The question is would he have scored if Makinson wasn't there? Makinson was there and committed a foul with a head shot. I think you would struggle to break a tackle into 2 parts tbh. Seems to have divided opinion for sure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a penalty earlier in the game when Roby was tackled by ?? (I forget) which started as a tackle round his chest and it ended up round his head. The penalty was given. It wasn’t ignored and an explanation of ‘he didn’t mean it and started off ok’ used. Makinson doesn’t foul Yaha, he definitely scores, it’s literally that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...