Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Anonymous person, post: 2452890, member: 2115"] obviously certain within reason. you cant be certain that a plane couldnt have crashed into the stadium 10 seconds later. but the referee would assume that the person was not going to drop the ball cold out of nowhere or fumble an easy put down. they have to be able to say that if he doesnt tackle him early, he scores. not he might score, he DOES score - which implies certainty. yes, he could just drop it cold. yes, he could suddenly break his leg and fall short, but 1 in a million things like that arent factored in. and yes, i do think a ref needs to be absolutely certain - using common sense - for it to be a penalty try, as thats how its always been and thats how the rules read. remember origin 2? the only reason cronk didnt give away a penalty try was because slater was close enough to possibly get the ball, even though watching it it looked like carney was 99% certain to score. the correct decision however was no penalty try, because it wasnt CERTAIN that he would get there before slater. in the storm GF of 99, penalty try was correct because if ainscough (iirc) didnt knock him out cold with a swinging arm to the face, common sense dictates that hes going to put the ball on the ground for a try. cut and dry, straight forward penalty try. thats saying i changed my argument, which i did not. i do think there was too much doubt - there was some doubt, which is more than none, meaning no penalty try. obviously its up to the video referees personal interpretation - just like manlys "kieran foran didnt touch it" try was up to personal interpretation. the referee got that one wrong, why do you think that this one couldnt have been wrong? he interpreted that he couldnt say foran touched it, just like this one interpreted that inglis wouldve certainly scored. one was definitely wrong, the other (the penalty try) is at least a bit more iffy since it was at least close. but it still shouldnt have been awarded as there was doubt. doubt means no penalty try, as the origin 2 decision correctly showed. so bill harrigan is the be all and end all now is he? if you dont remember, bill harrigans second half of his career was filled with howlers. you should note that the words "likelihood" and "reasonable to believe" are not in the rule book when it comes to a penalty try. lets not forget that bill harrigan also said he wouldve awarded a penalty try in origin 2 to carney: [url]http://www.foxsports.com.au/league/state-of-origin/referees-boss-bill-harrigan-says-he-would-have-awarded-a-penalty-try-in-state-of-origin-ii/story-fn31yxah-1226396177656[/url] none of the commentators thought it should be a penalty try, and harrigan himself even says that because there was doubt due to slater being in proximity that he can see why he said no to a penalty try. so basically harrigan thought there was no doubt, which means penalty try - and comes back to the "certainty" term being thrown about in here - but clark thought there was doubt, meaning no penalty try. so really, hes saying if there is any doubt, no penalty try. watching the souths/canberra game, itd take a brave man to say there was no doubt inglis would score. and like i said, someone whos wrong telling me that im wrong doesnt mean anything. by the rules it was not a penalty try. what do i think wouldve happened? i think inglis probably wouldve scored. i wouldnt say that he would have, but he probably would have. i also thought he would score in origin 3. i also thought oldfields try wouldnt be allowed. i also thought grounding the ball in your own in-goals was a drop out. i was wrong on those 3, and i cant be sure he wouldve scored this time. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 358 (members: 0, guests: 358)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now