Sat 17th Sept: SL: St Helens v Salford Red Devils KO 13:00 (Sky & Channel 4)

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I know it is a challenge using stills,  but the 2nd pic shows his knees relatively close to the ball ( a metre or so),  if he was allowed to have his arms and body ahead of him by not being fouled there is definitely a shout that he could have reached it. 

I think at the very worst it is 50/50

A player running full speed and diving certainly has a very good chance of getting to that. We see players getting downward pressure and scoring in similar positions quite frequently.

[StandOffHalf]

14 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm happy with the refs conclusion,  but I dont think it is that clear cut.  The Salford player is quite close to this ball,  he is in the in-goal area,  as is the ball,  and he has already been fouled. 

Thanks for these stills, Dave.

The one thing that makes me question penalty try would be Lafai's direction of travel. I still think he would have got there.

I think there's too much incentive to foul under the current wording. I think the RU wording of a ''probable try'' errs towards the fouled player and is a bit more satisfactory. I'd favour a slight tinkering with the wording for such situations.

[Dunbar]

On the penalty try / sin bin incident. 

The ref said that it could be a penalty try or a professional foul and sin bin... 'one or the other'.

When did that become a thing, surely it can be a penalty try and a sin bin.

[Hemi4561]

The ball was still in the field of play when the foul was committed, it should be given as a penalty try, no one knows where the ball would have gone, but what is certain is that the attacking player was prevented from following up the ball by foul play

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

On the penalty try / sin bin incident. 

The ref said that it could be a penalty try or a professional foul and sin bin... 'one or the other'.

When did that become a thing, surely it can be a penalty try and a sin bin.

It was a weird passage of discussion from Kendal.  It's as though by binning him his hands were tied and he couldn't give a penalty try.  But he made that decision. 

I'm not sure why he was making that point. The important point is that he didn't think it was a penalty try. 

[LeeF]

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

On the penalty try / sin bin incident. 

The ref said that it could be a penalty try or a professional foul and sin bin... 'one or the other'.

When did that become a thing, surely it can be a penalty try and a sin bin.

It was changed a few years ago

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, LeeF said:

It was changed a few years ago

Do you know what the rationale was?

[LeeF]

5 minutes ago, Hemi4561 said:

The ball was still in the field of play when the foul was committed, it should be given as a penalty try, no one knows where the ball would have gone, but what is certain is that the attacking player was prevented from following up the ball by foul play

So if the foul had taken place say 25 metres out but the ball was still in play at the time of the foul you would give a try every time if there is no cover? If not how close to the line does the foul have to take place? 

[StandOffHalf]

2 minutes ago, LeeF said:

It was changed a few years ago

I missed that change. Seems non-sensical to me.

[LeeF]

Just now, Dunbar said:

Do you know what the rationale was?

Something rings a bell about not penalising someone twice but I can’t remember for certain.
Football have more recently stopped the mandatory red card for denying a clear goal scoring opportunity for that reason except for dangerous foul play and RL changed before them

[LeeF]

1 minute ago, StandOffHalf said:

I missed that change. Seems non-sensical to me.

Not arguing the logic or lack of but these types of instances are few & far between. 
 

The other slight change was to the 8 point try which used to be in the act of scoring or regaining your feet. Now it’s just in the act of scoring which is a very narrow window

[LeeF]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It was a weird passage of discussion from Kendal.  It's as though by binning him his hands were tied and he couldn't give a penalty try.  But he made that decision. 

I'm not sure why he was making that point. The important point is that he didn't think it was a penalty try. 

If Makinson had kicked the Salford player then he could have awarded a penalty try, assuming he thought it was one, and sent Makinson off for foul play. A professional foul is more akin to a technical foul

[Dave T]

Just now, LeeF said:

If Makinson had kicked the Salford player then he could have awarded a penalty try, assuming he thought it was one, and sent Makinson off for foul play. A professional foul is more akin to a technical foul

I assume he can also use yellow,  if it was say,  a high tackle that prevented it too. 

But I suppose the point is why was the ref saying that?  Once he had binned him,  there is no relevance to the ref saying it has to be one or the other. 

[StandOffHalf]

3 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Not arguing the logic or lack of but these types of instances are few & far between. 
 

The other slight change was to the 8 point try which used to be in the act of scoring or regaining your feet. Now it’s just in the act of scoring which is a very narrow window

Few and far between but when they happen often crucially important.

A defender is almost incentivised to foul and hope that the ref has a touch of doubt.

[Dunbar]

9 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Something rings a bell about not penalising someone twice but I can’t remember for certain.
Football have more recently stopped the mandatory red card for denying a clear goal scoring opportunity for that reason except for dangerous foul play and RL changed before them

Thanks.

Without being too critical of the ref, I think his language was wrong.  He made it sound like he couldn't give a penalty try because he had sent Makinson to the sin bin while the rationale is actually the other way around, if he had given a penalty try then he wouldn't have binned Makinson. 

He didn't give a penalty try because he didn't think it was one.

[Damien]

One or the other seems daft in that scenario as there seems little incentive not to do what Makinson did. At worst a try is given anyway and he gets off a scott free and at best he got the outcome he did. With a few minutes left with the aim of stopping Salford scoring why wouldn't you commit a professional foul?

[LeeF]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I assume he can also use yellow,  if it was say,  a high tackle that prevented it too. 

But I suppose the point is why was the ref saying that?  Once he had binned him,  there is no relevance to the ref saying it has to be one or the other. 

I think in the heat of the moment he just spoke garbage even though his decision was confidently made and he was happy with it

[LeeF]

4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Thanks.

Without being too critical of the ref, I think his language was wrong.  He made it sound like he couldn't give a penalty try because he had sent Makinson to the sin bin while the rationale is actually the other way around, if he had given a penalty try then he wouldn't have binned Makinson. 

He didn't give a penalty try because he didn't think it was one.

His language was poor. Probably just one of those things. Your last sentence is spot on.

Anyway Leeds will be happy as Liam Moore will likely get the final and as they complained incessantly after week 1 they never win when Kendal referees them

[Hemi4561]

4 minutes ago, LeeF said:

So if the foul had taken place say 25 metres out but the ball was still in play at the time of the foul you would give a try every time if there is no cover? If not how close to the line does the foul have to take place? 

The ball was in the in goal area and so was the foul

Assume all the players are in half of the field and someone kicks through. An attacker chases the ball and a lone defender takes the attacking player out, the intent is clear, it should not matter if the ball is two meters in front of them or twenty two. Nor should it matter how close the ball is from the dead ball line, the foul has been committed for the sole purpose of preventing a potential try being scored. Penalty try and a red card. 

[LeeF]

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

One or the other seems daft in that scenario as there seems little incentive not to do what Makinson did. At worst a try is given anyway and he gets off a scott free and at best he got the outcome he did. With a few minutes left with the aim of stopping Salford scoring why wouldn't you commit a professional foul?

That rolling of the dice happens in a number of sports and is one I would take

[LeeF]

1 minute ago, Hemi4561 said:

The ball was in the in goal area and so was the foul

Assume all the players are in half of the field and someone kicks through. An attacker chases the ball and a lone defender takes the attacking player out, the intent is clear, it should not matter if the ball is two meters in front of them or twenty two. Nor should it matter how close the ball is from the dead ball line, the foul has been committed for the sole purpose of preventing a potential try being scored. Penalty try and a red card. 

I will politely disagree with the example(s) you’ve provided. There is too much open to chance hence why the parameters are currently very, maybe too, tight.

As I previously posted I preferred the older interpretation which would still result in your example being a no try but may change todays to a try. The red card additional penalty is way too harsh especially if a try is awarded 

[LeeF]

4 minutes ago, Hemi4561 said:

The ball was in the in goal area and so was the foul

Assume all the players are in half of the field and someone kicks through. An attacker chases the ball and a lone defender takes the attacking player out, the intent is clear, it should not matter if the ball is two meters in front of them or twenty two. Nor should it matter how close the ball is from the dead ball line, the foul has been committed for the sole purpose of preventing a potential try being scored. Penalty try and a red card. 

Forgot to add that the ball rolled dead so you can’t claim it was in the in-goal area as this is the key point in the no try decision 

[LeeF]

15 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

Few and far between but when they happen often crucially important.

A defender is almost incentivised to foul and hope that the ref has a touch of doubt.

By definition they will always be crucial unless you are 50 points up

[Dave T]

One last screen capture (probably). 

This shows where the foul started.  It is amazing that the Salford player got so close to the ball considering this,  and imho it is stuff like this that going to the VR could have helped.  All the replays (apart from this angle)  shows only the latter stages as the ball is near the dead ball line,  but when the foul starts,  the ball is well in the field. 

 

[LeeF]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

One last screen capture (probably). 

This shows where the foul started.  It is amazing that the Salford player got so close to the ball considering this,  and imho it is stuff like this that going to the VR could have helped.  All the replays (apart from this angle)  shows only the latter stages as the ball is near the dead ball line,  but when the foul starts,  the ball is well in the field. 

 

Without opening up another can of worms it would have been sent up as “no try” which raises the bar for the VR to award