Finals Week 2 Discussion

[Kimlo]

well you know what to do then .

Lol, I don't actually, please tell me.

 

[Browny]

Don't feed troll

 

[OXY-351]

anything could of happened

Great answer. Thanks

p.s - it's could have happened

 

[Anonymous person]

The odds don't have to be 0 for a penalty try to be awarded.

they do though, as per the rules. "WOULD" have scored, not MIGHT HAVE/COULD HAVE. in the refs opinion the player must have been going to score if not for the illegal act. with how it played out there is no way to say inglis WOULD have scored. he might have, but you cant say he would have.

Based on your figures of .5 of a second too early and 5m out from the line, if you assume that Greg Inlgis could cover the 100m in around 12 seconds, and that he was close to full speed, then he'd cover over 4m in that time, leaving him 1m from the line. Given that situation, how many times do you think a defender tackling someone from the rear is going to pull of a try saving tackle?

inglis wasnt close to full speed, and it was something like the 65th minute wasnt it? hes not going to cover 4m in that time, and it was less than 0.5 of a second. youre also forgetting that inglis got a hand on the ball before he actually got brought down - its not like he got tackled then the pass was thrown. also you seem to be forgetting just how quickly ferguson pulled him down. 1/4 of a second wasnt gonna change that.

You seem to be basing your argument that because it's not absolutely certain that a try would have been scored then it shouldn't be a penalty try. If you think there was too much doubt, then fine, I can actually understand that point of view, but that's not what you were arguing orginally. As per some previous arguments, you seem to think your knowledge of the rules are superior to everyone else here, when in this case I think it's clear that they aren't.

im basing my argument on the fact that it shouldnt have been a penalty try because you cant say he wouldve scored. i havent changed my argument at all, so im curious - could you please explain how and when my argument supposedly changed?

and again - someone who has demonstrated that they dont have a good knowledge or understanding of the rules telling me that im wrong means nothing.

He finished well over the try line......ftr

can you find a link that shows it? the only ones ive seen on news.com.au and NRL.com show them pulling up to a stop with fergusons left leg over the line (as its sticking out in front of him) and inglis' torso just short.

 

[Twiztid]

inglis wasnt close to full speed, and it was something like the 65th minute wasnt it? hes not going to cover 4m in that time, and it was less than 0.5 of a second. youre also forgetting that inglis got a hand on the ball before he actually got brought down - its not like he got tackled then the pass was thrown. also you seem to be forgetting just how quickly ferguson pulled him down. 1/4 of a second wasnt gonna change that.

The only factor I can really see in the footage is that Ferguson having to wait that fraction longer may have put Inglis an inch further in front of him and instead of Ferguson getting him around the shoulders and bringing him down while off balance (as he was preparing to receive the pass, while moving around Dugan).

Once he received the ball Ferguson might have only been able to get Inglis around the waist or by the jersey and in this time Inglis has positioned himself forward enough to go down with the tackler and slide forward and using his momentum to score, obviously if Inglis doesn't drop the ball before hand etc. However he never gets that chance. So I am ok with the penalty try but was expecting a penalty and a binning of Ferguson.

 

[OXY-351]

im basing my argument on the fact that it shouldnt have been a penalty try because you cant say he wouldve scored. i havent changed my argument at all, so im curious - could you please explain how and when my argument supposedly changed?

Your previous post below would seem to indicate that you think a ref needs to be absolutely certain to award a penalty try. If that was the case, when would a penalty try ever be awarded? It's not physically possible to ever be "absolutely certain" of something that didn't happen. Show me any penatly try since 1908 where you could be sure the player would have scored had it not been for the foul play?

you cannot say with absolute certainty that he would have scored, which means no penalty try.

I never said you changed your argument. I said that if you thought that there was too much doubt (which it sounds like you do), then that's fine as it's down to everyone's personal interpretation, but that's different to your original argument where the precense of any doubt, no matter how small, should see a penalty try not awarded. If you're still sticking to the argument that there must be "abolsute certainty", then maybe have a read below, which is Bill Harrigans view on the matter. Note the use of the phrases "likelihood" and "reasonable to beleive". He's not sayin Inglis would have scored for ceratin, because that's not what is required for ruling a penalty try.

The penalty try is the correct decision. In all likelihood Inglis would have taken the ball and scored had he not been tackled without the ball. Inglis ends up finishing in the in-goal anyway, so it is reasonable to believe had he not been tackled without the ball, he would have scored.

someone who has demonstrated that they dont have a good knowledge or understanding of the rules telling me that im wrong means nothing.

I'd rather a referee with the experience of Bill Harrigan agree with me on the rules, than some anonymous person on the internet.

I'll ask again though, what you think would have happend if there was no illegal play by Ferguson? Do you think Inglis would have scored?

 

[simmo77]

they do though, as per the rules. "WOULD" have scored, not MIGHT HAVE/COULD HAVE. in the refs opinion the player must have been going to score if not for the illegal act. with how it played out there is no way to say inglis WOULD have scored. he might have, but you cant say he would have.

inglis wasnt close to full speed, and it was something like the 65th minute wasnt it? hes not going to cover 4m in that time, and it was less than 0.5 of a second. youre also forgetting that inglis got a hand on the ball before he actually got brought down - its not like he got tackled then the pass was thrown. also you seem to be forgetting just how quickly ferguson pulled him down. 1/4 of a second wasnt gonna change that.

im basing my argument on the fact that it shouldnt have been a penalty try because you cant say he wouldve scored. i havent changed my argument at all, so im curious - could you please explain how and when my argument supposedly changed?

and again - someone who has demonstrated that they dont have a good knowledge or understanding of the rules telling me that im wrong means nothing.


can you find a link that shows it? the only ones ive seen on news.com.au and NRL.com show them pulling up to a stop with fergusons left leg over the line (as its sticking out in front of him) and inglis' torso just short.

Plus you have to expect that inglis would have made it further / closer if he had have caught the ball and kept fighting in the tackle rather than giving up and sitting back.

 

[Twiztid]

[video=youtube_share;iU0Ky6lV-CE]http://youtu.be/iU0Ky6lV-CE[/video]

I just cut down and uploaded the main section of the Inglis Penalty try so we can all have a good look again.

 

[Anonymous person]

Your previous post below would seem to indicate that you think a ref needs to be absolutely certain to award a penalty try. If that was the case, when would a penalty try ever be awarded? It's not physically possible to ever be "absolutely certain" of something that didn't happen. Show me any penatly try since 1908 where you could be sure the player would have scored had it not been for the foul play?

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.

I never said you changed your argument. I said that if you thought that there was too much doubt (which it sounds like you do), then that's fine as it's down to everyone's personal interpretation, but that's different to your original argument where the precense of any doubt, no matter how small, should see a penalty try not awarded.

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.

If you're still sticking to the argument that there must be "abolsute certainty", then maybe have a read below, which is Bill Harrigans view on the matter. Note the use of the phrases "likelihood" and "reasonable to beleive". He's not sayin Inglis would have scored for ceratin, because that's not what is required for ruling a penalty try.

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:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/league/...ate-of-origin-ii/story-fn31yxah-1226396177656

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.

I'd rather a referee with the experience of Bill Harrigan agree with me on the rules, than some anonymous person on the internet.

I'll ask again though, what you think would have happend if there was no illegal play by Ferguson? Do you think Inglis would have scored?

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.

 

[Jeba]

I wouldnt have had a problem with it if they gave a penalty try in Origin 2. Likewise, I wouldn't have had a problem if they only awarded a penalty in this case plus a sin bin. They're just situations where you could have a couple of justified outcomes.

AP - you haven't once showed me anything in the rule book that backs up your argument. The rule book says that a penalty try shall be awarded if, in the referee's opinion, a try would've been scored. In this case, the referee's opinion is that a try would've been scored. That's the rule. There's no mention of the word certainly or certainty. If they wanted to stress that there has to be complete certainty that a try would've been scored, I'm sure they would've put the word in the rule book. As it stands, the rule is based on the referee's opinion. Besides, Inglis ends up fractionally short of the line after being taken out early, and he was appealing for the penalty as he went down. If he was taken at the correct moment, and made every effort to make it to the try line, there is no doubt in the world he would've made it.

And after all, there were no arguments at all from David Shillington or the Raiders at the time of the incident, no arguments from the commentators either. I'll take their opinion over yours any day of the week.

Every time I watch the replay I am more and more convinced that that is a penalty try every day of the week.

 

[Porthoz]

Twitzid's video shows enough for everyone to make up their mind and have their own opinion. After watching the event for the first time now, mine is that it should've been a sin bin and penalty, not a penalty try, as although it's more than likely that Inglis would've scored, there isn't certainty enough.

But this argument is starting to go in circles, so unless anyone has a fresh opinion or perspective, move on!

 

[Mr Fourex]

can you find a link that shows it? the only ones ive seen on news.com.au and NRL.com show them pulling up to a stop with fergusons left leg over the line (as its sticking out in front of him) and inglis' torso just short.

The video shown here by twiz shows it quite clearly. He's sitting on the try line. If he had the ball in his hands, he would have scored. Not arguing the point.....just saying.

 

[Anonymous person]

The video shown here by twiz shows it quite clearly. He's sitting on the try line. If he had the ball in his hands, he would have scored. Not arguing the point.....just saying.

Well you originally said he, and I quote, "finished well over the try line". As the video shows, like i said, he was pulled up just short of the line. Just saying ;).

 

[simmo77]

Well you originally said he, and I quote, "finished well over the try line". As the video shows, like i said, he was pulled up just short of the line. Just saying ;).

So would you agree that if the ball hadnt been illegally knocked from his grasp that he could have placed the ball on or over the line and scored?

 

[Anonymous person]

So would you agree that if the ball hadnt been illegally knocked from his grasp that he could have placed the ball on or over the line and scored?

It wasn't illegally knocked from his grasp, he was tackled without the ball btw.

Of course he could have! *would* he have though? That's the question that has doubt, and as such is why it should've just been a penalty try/sin-bin.

 

[Twiztid]

Maybe it was a benefit of the doubt penalty try....

 

[OXY-351]

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.

So now it sounds like you are chaning your argument from absolute certainty, to a some degree of certainty, albeit a high one, which is exactly how the rule should be interpreted.

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.

Commone sense? You should note that the words "common sense" are not in the rule book? Can you say for certain that Craig Smith would have scored? Ainscough was in a position to pull off a legal try saving manoeuvre but he just got his timing wrong. Had he not got his timing wrong he could have held him up, forced him over the dead ball line, forced that ball loose, not to mention that Smith could have fumbled the put down. How many times do you see wingers fumble put downs from kicks or be held up in the process of tryign to ground it? It happens just about every week.

You seem to be happy that was ruled a pentalty try though, and you know why, because your application of common sense would tell you that 9 time out of 10 a player would score given that situation, so in the sitatuaion where they have been fouled, they need to be given some sort of benfit of the doubt that had they not been fouled, they wouldn't have been the 1 time out of 10 that a player wouldn't have scored. While you may not have specifically mentioned it, your common sense ruling inlcudes "likelihood" and "reasonable to beleive". The term "common sense" isn't in specifcially in the rule book for penatly tries any more than "likelihood" and "reasonable to beleive", although all of the terms are broadly represented under the word "opinion" though, as that's what you have to base you opinion on.

lets not forget that bill harrigan also said he wouldve awarded a penalty try in origin 2 to carney: 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.

Look at what you just wrote. Harrigan is saying that he acknowledges there was some doubt due to Slater beign in the proximity, but in his opinion, he still would have awarded a penalty try as there wasn't sufficient doubt that Slater would have stopped the try. Doesn't sound like he's saying if there's any doubt, then no penalty try to me. It sounds like he's saying it's only if there is sufficient doubt. Obviously Steve Clarke thought there was sufficient doubt. What level is sufficient doubt though? Because it's a subjective view or an opinion as the rule states, so put 10 people in a room and you'll never get those 10 people to agree on it, but hopefully those 10 people are actually basing their view on the correct intepretation of the rule.

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.

This is where I think you don't understand the rule. Just because you can show 1 example in a similar situtation where a player didn't score (which I beleive isn't even a correct example as the player hit the goal posts in that example. The goal posts weren't going to play a part in Inglis try on the weekend), that doesn't show enough doubt for a penalty try not to be awarded. I could show a hundred examples why the Craig Smith try in 99 should not have been awarded based on creating some degree of doubt, but it's the thousands of other examples that could shown as to why it should be a try that made it the correct decision.

You need to look at the specific case and see without the foul play, wether there was anything the defence would have been able to do to stop the try, or at the very least put enough doubt in the refs mind that they would have stopped Inlgis from scoring. The presence of some doubt doesn't neccessarily mean the presence of enough doubt. One example of them doing so in a previous situtation doesn't create enough doubt to stop a penalty try from being awarded in the current situation.

So where does the "probably" come from in "probably wouldve scored"? What degree of "probably" is that? Would you say a player would score in that situation 9 times out of 10 times? 6 times out of 10? In this specific situation, if not for an illegal early tackle, what would the defence have done to stop Inglis from scoring, or could have done so to create enough doubt to stop a penalty try being awarded?

Yes, Ferguson would have more than likely ended up tackling Inglis, but at the stage, would it have been enough to stop the try? To say that Ferguson (or Dugan) COULD have pulled off the try saving tackle of the year isn't enough - it's the likelihood they WOULD have that shold be in the main driver.

so bill harrigan is the be all and end all now is he?

No, but I'd rather listen to the views of someone of his calibre than continually read in just about every topic how you seem to think you understand the game better than anyone else here. Yeah, he has made some wrong calls in the past, but only because he put himself in a position to do so. How many NRL games have you ref'd in your life?

Anyway, continue on aguing your point. You're just proving more and more with each post that you don't understand the penatly try rule, yet your ego is obviously too big to acknowledge you may just possibly be wrong in this instance.

 

[Coxy]

You said you were going to let AP have the last say, Oxy. Now you've guaranteed at least another page of circular drivel over what is nothing but history now.