Round 7 Match Thread

I think it should have been a penalty try. Can see why the video ref thought otherwise based on an guideline to the rules, but I reckon most people think it should have been, as should have the Ryan Hoffman one a couple of weeks ago, and another one the same weekend by someone I can't remember.

I don't agree with the call for a penalty try and a sin-bin though. If a penalty try is given then the offender hasn't prevented a try, so they shouldn't be sin binned, as that is what you need for a sin-bin in the first place.

While 2 wrongs don't make a right, having an extra man for 10 minutes should have meant that the Tigers did much better in this match, so I don't think the call cost them the match. They either should have been more ahead than 2-0 in that 10 minute period, or they should have come home stronger at the end of the match due to fatigue of the Storm players. It's hard to say what is the bigger advantage/disadvantage, a penalty try or 10 minutes in the sin-bin. I would probably argue it's the sin bin (given what happened in origin a couple of years ago, and also when Gillett was sin-binned against the Dragons a couple of yers back when he was 40 metres onside). Perhaps had the Tigers scored 2-3 converted tries in that 10 minute period, you could say that the Storm were unfairly penalised.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

Cool. So I'm assuming you agree that any claims about Smith influencing the referees, is utter rubbish??

Is red palm oil worse then sesame oil ?
Where is the correlation in your assumption ?

Milchcow wrote:

The thing about penalty tries, is that phrases like '100%' and 'guarantee' are a complete fabrication by the fanbase*

The actual rule, copied from the rule book here
http://www.playnrl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ARL-Rules-book-2016.pdf





All it takes his for the referee to think a try would have been scored.  

So in that sense the decision to award (or not award) a penalty try can never be incorrect, because who is to dictate what the referee's opinion is
But you just know at some point in the next couple weeks, as a "square up" for recent decisions, someone will get sent off for tripping, and someone will get a dodgy penalty try,


* As a side note, one of the biggest causes of people's negative opinion of referees, is that they judge their decisions against what they think the rules are, or what they want the rules to be. Not on what the rules actually are. Phil Gould is a massive offender here, and I am so so so so so so so so so happy that I can watch Fox now and never have to listen to him again.

You and your facts ruining a perfectly good argument
There it is in black and white OSM, it should have been a try but wasn't awarded because of Smiths influence with the refs. Seriously though if it's the refs opinion then it comes down to which is more likely and he was way more likely to score than not.

Krump wrote:
You and your facts ruining a perfectly good argument
There it is in black and white OSM, it should have been a try but wasn't awarded because of Smiths influence with the refs. Seriously though if it's the refs opinion then it comes down to which is more likely and he was way more likely to score than not.

Wait what? Cam Smith caught a bus to the bunker to speak to Luke Patten while he was making a decision then returned to the field after the penalty was given?

See Milchy's editing Dip. He knew what I meant to say

Cam Smith due to his standing in the game has more influence over other captains, should he? No. Does he? Yes. He's clever with the way he does it, manipulates the ref. When a penalty against them in blown he stays calm and collected as to not piss them off more but when it's on the other foot and they're wanting the penalty he's a tad more aggressive. He's perfected the art and more captains should do it. Let's not forget that Alex McKinnon did it to himself.

DWZ thank you very much

So on field Ashley Klein says "we have a possible 8 point try" sends it to the bunker.

Based on all our copy & paste legal eagles that's the refs opinion.

The bunker must find conclusive evidence to over rule a decision (can one of the legal eagles copy & paste that for me)

So based on the laws of the game the bunker made a decision outside of the laws of the game and the Tigers were robbed a penalty try.

That was some terrible defence.

Turn it up u lot !

Smiths a veritable saint !

Hot potato football! Fuck that was entertaining!

Ref: Differential penalty
Peter Wallace: what's that?
Haha

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

I hate Melbourne and have never ever thought he has any influence on a game.....hence why I assume it is State allegiance making it appear that way to you blokes.

That just proves that its your state allegiance that is making you blind to it.
Also, thanks to Milchy for those posts.

That 100% should have been a penalty try on the weekend. Clear cut. He prevented Lawrence from having the opportunity to score the try, illegally, in the in-goal. That should be more than enough to make it a penalty try.

I disagree with the "The rule not the ruling" stuff people are saying too - its both the rule and the ruling that are fucked.

Also, totally disagree with the Penalty try and no sin bin. What you are saying is - them scoring the try is enough punishment. They were going to score the try anyway, thats why they did the professional foul. Its no punishment at all! A sin bin is as well as the penalty try being awarded is not only a punishment for the professional foul, its a deterrent.

I think they already get enough advantage by having a try awarded under the black dot. 10 in the bin is too much imo as there can be 3 tries in that time. I could live with the rules being changed to be have a penalty try to be an 8 point try.

Pieman wrote:

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

I hate Melbourne and have never ever thought he has any influence on a game.....hence why I assume it is State allegiance making it appear that way to you blokes.

That just proves that its your state allegiance that is making you blind to it.
Also, thanks to Milchy for those posts.

That 100% should have been a penalty try on the weekend. Clear cut. He prevented Lawrence from having the opportunity to score the try, illegally, in the in-goal. That should be more than enough to make it a penalty try.

I disagree with the "The rule not the ruling" stuff people are saying too - its both the rule and the ruling that are fucked.

Also, totally disagree with the Penalty try and no sin bin. What you are saying is - them scoring the try is enough punishment. They were going to score the try anyway, thats why they did the professional foul. Its no punishment at all! A sin bin is as well as the penalty try being awarded is not only a punishment for the professional foul, its a deterrent.

The rule is subjective, that means a ruling has to be made based on subjectivity. Not sure how to fix it, but you can't expect the refs to get the ruling right every time when the rule itself has no definitively objective parameters.

Dip wrote:I think they already get enough advantage by having a try awarded under the black dot. 10 in the bin is too much imo as there can be 3 tries in that time. I could live with the rules being changed to be have a penalty try to be an 8 point try.

I get what you mean but I disagree. He's cheated to stop them for scoring a try, award them the try he would have scored regardless and punish the cheater with ten in the bin.

Aside from this, I can guarantee you that the NRL is very close to changing the rules and will start sin binning players who repeated infringements inside the ten. There will be a round or two were they crack down on it massively.

SI wrote:

The rule is subjective, that means a ruling has to be made based on subjectivity.  Not sure how to fix it, but you can't expect the refs to get the ruling right every time when the rule itself has no definitively objective parameters.

It's an issue with heaps of rulings. People just assume because they don't agree with a decision that it's wrong when in reality it's 50/50.

Pieman wrote:

That just proves that its your state allegiance that is making you blind to it.
Also, thanks to Milchy for those posts.

That 100% should have been a penalty try on the weekend. Clear cut. He prevented Lawrence from having the opportunity to score the try, illegally, in the in-goal. That should be more than enough to make it a penalty try.

I disagree with the "The rule not the ruling" stuff people are saying too - its both the rule and the ruling that are fucked.

Also, totally disagree with the Penalty try and no sin bin. What you are saying is - them scoring the try is enough punishment. They were going to score the try anyway, thats why they did the professional foul. Its no punishment at all! A sin bin is as well as the penalty try being awarded is not only a punishment for the professional foul, its a deterrent.

As I keep saying you blokes are deadset kidding yourselves if you think the ref's are influenced by Cam Smith. It's bordering on a Lebbo-esque conspiracy theory.

As for the penalty try, it was 100% clear cut an easy decision for the ref's because it there is too much doubt whether a try 'would' have been scored.

The video Milch threw up is the only penalty try I have seen given whereby the player did not have control of the ball but it was a different scenario IMO because the bloke was off his feet when he took Cooper (I think) out.

There are plenty of others over the years where there is just too much doubt whether a try would have actually have been scored, including one in SOO where Cronk was binned also.