Finals Week 2 Discussion

[Anonymous person]

And the rules only say that it's a penalty try if, in the ref's opinion, a try would have been scored but for the infringement (or very similar wording to this) - not sure where the "certainty" aspect came from, although it seems to be tossed up a lot. Probably one of Bills excuses he used at one time which has come back to bite him on the backside.

ill show you where "certainty" came from:

And the rules only say that it's a penalty try if, in the ref's opinion, a try would have been scored but for the infringement

"WOULD" have been scored implies that it certainly would have happened. if it didnt have to be certain they would use "COULD" have been scored or "MIGHT" have been scored.

i really cant see how you guys are arguing this. for crying out loud, inglis was about 5m out from the try line when he got taken out, and he got brought down before the try line, even though he got tackled a teeny tiny fraction of a second early! you cannot say with absolute certainty that he would have scored, which means no penalty try.

 

[Dexter]

Ferguson tackles Inglis early because he knew he couldn't make the tackle, the fulback was never even going to touch Inglis which leaves the only way not to score was to drop the pass cold with nobody touching him.

You have to read all of the rule, would have scored "but" for the unfair play of the defender.

 

[Anonymous person]

Ferguson tackles Inglis early because he knew he couldn't make the tackle, the fulback was never even going to touch Inglis which leaves the only way not to score was to drop the pass cold with nobody touching him.

You have to read all of the rule, would have scored "but" for the unfair play of the defender.

for someone that "couldn't make the tackle" he sure tackled him well less than half a second before he got the ball.

i did read all of the rule - the word WOULD is still the word that points out that it has to be a certainty. with a defender right on top of him, along with only getting the ball 5m+ from the try line, its not a certainty "but for the unfair play of the defender".

for mine, to see a great example of how its not a certainty you only need to go back to origin 3 this year. same player too - when smith went straight through, dummied past the fullback, and then passed to inglis, he was in for all money. thurston who was right next to him started jumping up and down in celebration......then inglis got pulled down from behind and lo and behold, didnt make the try line. everyone in the stadium thought inglis was in. thurston thought inglis was in. inglis probably thought inglis was in.

inglis wasnt in.

im sorry but getting taken out 5m+ from the try line by a tackler who is right on top of you is not a penalty try.

 

[Dexter]

Oh well we disagree on this I guess. Like I said Ferguson makes the tackle early because he knew if he waited until Inglis got the ball he could not stop him that says it all IMO

 

[Big Pete]

That shouldn't have been a penalty try.

Clear professional foul but GI still had to catch the ball, run a good 8 metres with converging defence and ground the ball.

 

[The Brizz]

I thought penalty and Sin Bin would have been the correct result, I cannot be certain he would have scored.

 

[simmo77]

After watching it again I'm happy with the penalty try. Dugan barely lays a hand on inglis and falls over and Ferguson and inglis both end up in the in goal. For Christs sake inglis scores even if Ferguson is in front making a legal tackle.

 

[Big Pete]

Should the video ref. take into the account the quality of the player being infringed or be fair to everyone?

Should he be as confident it's a penalty if say it was Issac Gordon infringed? Or should he be fair to every player?

 

[simmo77]

Well if he is applying the 'would have' then inglis for all money would have. Our fullback on the other hand would be 50-1

 

[Dexter]

Good question Pete, I was going to throw that at AP with Slater as the example but I didn't want it to be taken the wrong way. It shouldn't matter really.

 

[The Brizz]

What if it was Chris Walker in INglis' shoes. No way I could give a penalty try!

 

[simmo77]

What if it was Chris Walker in INglis' shoes. No way I could give a penalty try!

I would have my doubts over a majority of players but it is in the refs discretion to award by each cases merits. Does everyone agree with the 1999 gf ruling for Craig Smith's penalty try? Ainscough took him high but how many wingers have dropped the ball when trying to put it down under pressure.

 

[OXY-351]

ill show you where "certainty" came from:

"WOULD" have been scored implies that it certainly would have happened. if it didnt have to be certain they would use "COULD" have been scored or "MIGHT" have been scored.

Do you comprehend English? I would have thought the key phrase in that statement is "in the ref's opinion", making the call a subjective one. If something didn't happen, the speculation that it would have happend is purely subjective. One persons perception on whether it would have happened could be totally different to someone else's perception.

If you replaced "would" with "could" or "might" have been scored then you are making it even more subjective. Eg, if support player is taken out on their goal line, what's to say they could not have scored, or might not have scored, had they not been taken out.

If there had to be abolsute certainty about a player scoring, then a penatly try should never be awarded, as had a foul not been commited, there is always the chance a player could have dropped a pass, not grounded the ball correctly etc anyway. You could argue that Craig Smith may have dropped the ball in grounding it in the 1999 gf, but there was a very high chance he would have scored had he not been taken high.

I think it was a 50/50 call as to whether or not one was awarded in this case. I can see the arguments for and against it, but to argue that it shouldn't have been awarded because they should only be awared when there is absolutely no uncertainty that a player would have scored is just stupid.

 

[OXY-351]

for someone that "couldn't make the tackle" he sure tackled him well less than half a second before he got the ball.

Being in a position to make an illegal tackle isn't the same as being in the position to make a legal try saving tackle on a guy who is accelerating away from you 5m out from the try line. Sure it's not a certainty he would have scored, but I'd back him to score in that situation 99 times out of a 100.

for mine, to see a great example of how its not a certainty you only need to go back to origin 3 this year. same player too - when smith went straight through, dummied past the fullback, and then passed to inglis, he was in for all money. thurston who was right next to him started jumping up and down in celebration......then inglis got pulled down from behind and lo and behold, didnt make the try line. everyone in the stadium thought inglis was in. thurston thought inglis was in. inglis probably thought inglis was in.

Is that the one where the only thing that really stopped him from scoring in the end was the padding on the goal post? This is the one time I wouldn't have backed him.

 

[Jeba]

Forget about this certainty bullshit AP. That's nowhere to be seen in the rule book. If you surveyed every fan in the stadium that night asking would Inglis have scored, yes or no? 99.9% would say yes he would've.

If they wanted to out certainty in the rule book, they (certainly) would have.

 

[Broncoman]

I would have my doubts over a majority of players but it is in the refs discretion to award by each cases merits. Does everyone agree with the 1999 gf ruling for Craig Smith's penalty try? Ainscough took him high but how many wingers have dropped the ball when trying to put it down under pressure.

100% Agree with that ruling. Smith was clearly going to get the ball down and score and Jamie Ainscough came and collared him high forcing him to lose the ball.

 

[Big Pete]

The problem I have is consistency.

IMO, Carney was in a much better position to score in Origin II than GI was on the weekend, yet that was just a penalty and a sin bin.

 

[fredie]

Forget about this certainty bullshit AP. That's nowhere to be seen in the rule book. If you surveyed every fan in the stadium that night asking would Inglis have scored, yes or no? 99.9% would say yes he would've.

If they wanted to out certainty in the rule book, they (certainly) would have.

99% of peeps on the radio say no try . no penalty . i say no penalty try

I'll be more specific for you .... being tackled in some way to stop him scoring the try. Ie, short of the line, held up over the line etc.

As it was, even being tackled early, Inglis' momentum still ended up taking him to the try line, and given the position the tackler was in to be able to make the tackle, the chance of him being able to hold Inglis up or force the ball loose were low.

and if the moon light was shineing at a 45% degree angle . there was a chance

Low, not non-existent, so therefore no penalty try

ill show you where "certainty" came from:



"WOULD" have been scored implies that it certainly would have happened. if it didnt have to be certain they would use "COULD" have been scored or "MIGHT" have been scored.

i really cant see how you guys are arguing this. for crying out loud, inglis was about 5m out from the try line when he got taken out, and he got brought down before the try line, even though he got tackled a teeny tiny fraction of a second early! you cannot say with absolute certainty that he would have scored, which means no penalty try.

fully agree . no try . stupid decision