Penalty try

[RayCee]

3 minutes ago, POR said:

Penalty try 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.

So basically the ref has to decide if he was close enough to the try line to touch down didn't see the game so you tell me

If you didn't see the game, here's 14 minutes of highlights that gives a good summary:

 

[Johnoco]

1 hour ago, RayCee said:

The initial contact was a fair one and had enough impact not to assume a try would have been scored. It then moved up to the heard and became a foul. That's how he ended up in the bin. I'm a great believer in penalty tries on blatent professional fouls. This was a fair tackle with no hint of professional foul about it. There was also no reasonable assumption a try would have been scored. 

Initial contact can't have been fair or it wouldn't have ended up clobbering him round the head.

Using this logic we would have very few high shots now, as all a player has to do is hit their chest, move up and almost take their head off but as long as the initial contact was ok, play on? 

[Johnoco]

1 hour ago, RayCee said:

There was also no reasonable assumption a try would have been scored. 

Just to go back to this point, are you really suggesting that a winger, with a clear path to the try line isn't going to score (unless hindered)? Seriously? 

[Bostik Bailey]

1 minute ago, Johnoco said:

Initial contact can't have been fair or it wouldn't have ended up clobbering him round the head.

Using this logic we would have very few high shots now, as all a player has to do is hit their chest, move up and almost take their head off but as long as the initial contact was ok, play on? 

That used to be the rule, initial contact was the deciding issue on the legality of the tackle. However since we have become more aware of the dangers of head knocks it is contact to the head that decides the illegality of the tackle.

[FearTheVee]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

But the tackle that you are stating stopped the try was the foul?  He didn't tackle him and then commit a foul, the tackle was the foul.

The foul happened when he made contact with the head.  By that time Yaha had already been shifted off course by earlier contact that wasn't itself a foul.

That said, I was expecting a PT to be given at the ground.

Edited October 11, 2021 by FearTheVee

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

8 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

The foul happened when he made contact with the head.  By that time Yaha had already been shifted off course by earlier contact that wasn't itself a foul.

But the earlier contact was the thing that led to the dangerous contact. You can't just separate them in to 2 distinct phases - the first part led to the second part. For me, the guilty tackler should be completely taken out of the equation, as his involvement was illegal - you can't just cherry pick bits of what he did.

[RayCee]

48 minutes ago, Bostik Bailey said:

That used to be the rule, initial contact was the deciding issue on the legality of the tackle. However since we have become more aware of the dangers of head knocks it is contact to the head that decides the illegality of the tackle.

No one is saying illegality didn’t happen. It’s whether a try was denied by the illegality. The decision was it didn’t. Had TM avoided slipping up too high, he would have prevented the try anyway. So no penalty try was the correct call. Then the second point was what action was to be taken for the high contact. He was sin binned for that. Top class officiating. 

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, RayCee said:

No one is saying illegality didn’t happen. It’s whether a try was denied by the illegality. The decision was it didn’t. Had TM avoided slipping up too high, he would have prevented the try anyway. So no penalty try was the correct call. Then the second point was what action was to be taken for the high contact. He was sin binned for that. Top class officiating. 

If the tackle was illegal then the try was denied by the illegality 

[Scubby]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

If the tackle was illegal then the try was denied by the illegality 

Makinson knew he was sliding off and over the top and instinctively grabbed Yaha by the head to pull him towards the touchline. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

23 hours ago, Dunbar said:

It's an interesting argument.  That is essentially breaking down the tackle into two parts, the 'fair' part which essentially stopped the try and the 'unfair' part which was penalised. 

Personally I don't think you can do that as it places even more of a burden on interpretation.  My feeling is, if the tackle resulted in a penalty then it is foul play.

Yeah that's my view. 

If you go into a tackle then make the whole thing from start to finish legal. 

I feel with the Makinson one that Tommy knew he might not have completely stopped him. He then seems to purposely clothes lined him in a second thought process to drag him out 

Game changer 

[GeordieSaint]

1 hour ago, RayCee said:

No one is saying illegality didn’t happen. It’s whether a try was denied by the illegality. The decision was it didn’t. Had TM avoided slipping up too high, he would have prevented the try anyway. So no penalty try was the correct call. Then the second point was what action was to be taken for the high contact. He was sin binned for that. Top class officiating. 

As a Saints fan, I am slightly bemused by your logic. You can’t separate the initial contact from the rest of the challenge; they are the same tackle. He hit him in the head during the tackle. It was illegal. Hence why he was binned. It should have been a penalty try as Yaha would have scored if Makinson hadn’t tackled him illegally.

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

As a Saints fan, I am slightly bemused by your logic. You can’t separate the initial contact from the rest of the challenge; they are the same tackle. He hit him in the head during the tackle. It was illegal. Hence why he was binned. It should have been a penalty try as Yaha would have scored if Makinson hadn’t tackled him illegally.

Agreed. The tackle is a complete entity of itself, there was no 'fair' and 'unfair' part to it. It was foul play and penalised as such.

So the decision is, take Makinson completely out of the play and does Yaha score. The officials thought that it wasn't likely although my view is he was likely to score as he had secured the ball and was a few metres from the line with no defenders in view.

[Lowdesert]

6 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

As a Saints fan, I am slightly bemused by your logic. You can’t separate the initial contact from the rest of the challenge; they are the same tackle. He hit him in the head during the tackle. It was illegal. Hence why he was binned. It should have been a penalty try as Yaha would have scored if Makinson hadn’t tackled him illegally.

I think that’s my view on it.  

TM didn’t knock him completely off line until the grab at the head and if there’s benefit of doubt, for foul play, that should have gone to the attacking player.

Either way it wasn’t given but Catalans cannot be disappointed with their season.  Been a big achievement that can all be proud of.

[GeordieSaint]

8 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

So the decision is, take Makinson completely out of the play and does Yaha score. The officials thought that it wasn't likely.

Which is baffling… as there wasn’t a Saints player within 10m of the incident. We got lucky with that decision. 

[David Dockhouse Host]

On 10/10/2021 at 19:05, 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. 

They came out at the start of the year and said they would blow if the ball carrier didn't gain their feet and be in control when playing the ball. As long as they made an attempt to play the ball with the foot they wouldn't blow for that.

So the reason the ref blew is they believed the ball carrier wasn't clearly stood up

[Dunbar]

7 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

They came out at the start of the year and said they would blow if the ball carrier didn't gain their feet and be in control when playing the ball. As long as they made an attempt to play the ball with the foot they wouldn't blow for that.

So the reason the ref blew is they believed the ball carrier wasn't clearly stood up

That's just the ridiculous situation of the games authorities explaing the particular way in which they won't be following the laws of the game this year.

And even that hasn't been followed as 95% of the play the balls show no effort to get the foot anywhere near the ball.

We can spin it any way we want but the situation is a farce.

[David Dockhouse Host]

On 11/10/2021 at 21:32, Dunbar said:

That's just the ridiculous situation of the games authorities explaing the particular way in which they won't be following the laws of the game this year.

And even that hasn't been followed as 95% of the play the balls show no effort to get the foot anywhere near the ball.

We can spin it any way we want but the situation is a farce.

Im not saying I agree, I was just pointing out how it is currently policed