State of Origin II by the rule book
Roar Rookie 
While it didn’t have the “I can’t believe they just did that” moment of Origin I, there was plenty of action on Wednesday night that could have sent fans, commentators and players alike scrambling for the rule book.
A couple of key moments are addressed below with reference to the official rules and referee guidelines.
Sin-bin? Penalty Try? Neither? Both?
Early in the second half, Mitchell Pearce put through a grubber, Todd Carney chased and was clearly pulled back by Cooper Cronk as Billy Slater came across to cover. The ball was knocked dead in-goal and Tony Archer called on the video referee to rule on the decision. This play generated a number of questions:
Why was the video ref involved? No-one in Australia thought Carney had grounded the ball so there was no obvious reason for Archer to call the video referee unless it was to ask “is it a penalty try?” This wasn’t the case.
Was it a penalty-try? The official rule book states “the Referee may award a penalty try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team” and the video refereeing guidelines state “the benefit of the doubt rule will apply to the attacking team”. These combined indicate that unless the video referee was reasonably confident that Carney would not score it should have been a penalty try. This is obviously a subjective matter but it would seem that the benefit of the doubt should have gone to the attacking team.
Was it a sin-bin offence? The referee guidelines for sin-binning state that a player can be sin-binned for “deliberate break down of play, especially in try scoring positions”. This clearly applied and so, especially given that a penalty try was not awarded, the referee had little choice but to put Cronk in the sin-bin.
Could it have been both? Though it is not officially stated, the unofficial policy is that the penalty try would have been sufficient punishment and so if it had been awarded, Cronk would not have been sin-binned. Ironically, given the tries NSW went on to score in his absence, this may have been a better result for Queensland.
Did Hayne knock the ball on?
Approximately five minutes later, Jarryd Hayne was tackled by Jonathan Thurstan, after which the ball spilt onto Hayne’s boot, was picked up by Josh Morris who then scored. On the video replay it appears that Thurston made a play at the ball.
Given that benefit of the doubt favours the attacking team and the rule states that it doesn’t matter which direction the ball goes if the ball is dislodged as a result of the defender playing at the ball, it was not a knock on and it was a try.
Drop out or 20m tap?
With about nine minutes to go, Brett Tate had the ball in the in-goal and would have scored had Michael Jennings not punched the ball from his hands and over the dead ball line. A 20m tap was awarded.
This was clearly the wrong call. As Jennings played at the ball and dislodged it from Tate’s hands, he is considered the last to have touched the ball and it should have been a drop-out.
When is a charge down not a charge down?
In the dying stages, as Queensland scrambled for the match-winning try, on the fifth tackle Cooper Cronk kicked forward, the ball struck the arm of Akuila Uate and fell to the ground. He then picked it up and ran away to score. The consensus of the players, commentators and eventually the video referee was that Uate had attempted to catch the ball and as a result his knocking of the ball to the ground constituted a knock-on. Play restarted with a scrum.
This however, was inconsistent with the letter of the law: “Charging down is blocking the path of the ball with hands, arm or body as it rises from an opponent’s kick … To charge-down a kick is permissible and is not a knock-on” Nowhere does it say that the defender must not be trying to catch the ball, only that it needs to be rising. As this was the case in this instance, it should not have been a knock-on and a try should have been awarded.
Conclusion
The most obviously wrong call of the night (the Tate / Jennings in-goal incident) obviously favoured NSW and could well have been decisive. It could also be argued that the sin-binning of Cronk, rather than the awarding of a penalty try ended up benefiting NSW as well, however this is not to say that the decision favoured NSW per se.
On the whole, the conspiracy theorists who bob up every year claiming that the NRL has rigged it to ensure a Game 3 had little to argue about and for this we should all be grateful!
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
The Crowd Says (9) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- Rugby Leage, State Of Origin
June 16th 2012 @ 3:42am
Mushi said | June 16th 2012 @ 3:42am | Report comment
On the penalty try that is a huge bow to draw because the entire scenario is a prediction of events and therefore shrouded in doubt.
By your interpretation every single penalty should therefore result in a try as our ability to forecast events is shrouded in doubt and Any doubt results in the benefit given to the attacker which results in a try.
Thankfully more sensible people have control over that. A referee needs to form the opinion that the try would have been scored. The mere existence of anything other than unlikely doubt prevents this, therefor you can not give benefit of the doubt.
I would say your use of the word clearly in regards to the charge down is at best gross exageration. For this to be correct the words catch and block must be entirely interchangeable, but alas they are not.
The rules do not say that attempting to catch it is allowed that is an extension made by yourself. In fact the rules go out of their way to more narrowly define how the ball may be played at.
Catching is not “only” blocking and hence goes beyond the allowable.
Wouldn’t a reasonable person question why don’t the rules simply say playing at the ball as it rises. “clearly” the law makers intended to differentiate and beleived us sensible enough people to figure that one out.
June 16th 2012 @ 6:28am
steve b said | June 16th 2012 @ 6:28am | Report comment
Vote 1 Mushi referee and rule co ordinator!!
June 18th 2012 @ 11:24am
Jeremy Atkin said | June 18th 2012 @ 11:24am | Report comment
The word clearly does not appear anywhere near the charge down – please see below for my more general comments
June 16th 2012 @ 8:38am
eagleJack said | June 16th 2012 @ 8:38am | Report comment
The refs are victims of the material they are working with. Just like the Inglis decision, where a green light and red light can both be justified under the current rulebook, we see the Carney incident divide the refereeing community.
I feel sorry for them. The material is far too subjective. And puts them under immense pressure knowing the scrutiny that follows.
But then they go and make a howler like Jenning punching the ball dead and calling a 20m restart. This is pretty black and white. What was the video ref doing? He has the power to advise the refs in such a situation but failed to. With those types of decisions my feeling of empathy wanes.
June 16th 2012 @ 10:06am
Meesta Cool said | June 16th 2012 @ 10:06am | Report comment
I agree with Mushi, There are fr too many inconsistencies in our game, eg If a player, holds back an attacking player it is deemed a professional foul, I f a defender holds down a player that has made a break and is brought down near the try line it is a professional foul both resulting in tem minutes in the sin bin YET, if these events occur anywhere else on the field they are largely ‘let go’ without any penalty at all.
Isn’t blocking an attacker also a professional foul, when have we seen someone ‘given 10 for preventing someone trying to get to a high kick, it’s just a penalty, Glad I am not a ref!
June 16th 2012 @ 10:32am
Meesta Cool said | June 16th 2012 @ 10:32am | Report comment
Lat night in the Saint’s Bulldogs game, Ennis pushed a Saint’s player (who was chasing a kick into the try area) to the ground, Saints got a penalty, no one screamed penalty try or insisted on a send off, I am confused!.
June 16th 2012 @ 9:54pm
Meesta Cool said | June 16th 2012 @ 9:54pm | Report comment
another classic example tonight when a bunnies player was held back .. penalty awarded, nothing else. surely these are professional fouls too. — Also one at least in Sharks game.
June 16th 2012 @ 10:08am
Kim Hart said | June 16th 2012 @ 10:08am | Report comment
Anyone who thinks Carney would definately have outpaced Slater and definately applied downward pressure to a ball he had yet to touch is delusional. Sin bin appropriate. There is an obvious distinction between charging down a kick and attempting to catch one and I think you know that. As for the Jennings-Tate incident yes it was a mistake but no that is not what lost QLD the game.
June 18th 2012 @ 11:15am
Jeremy Atkin said | June 18th 2012 @ 11:15am | Report comment
Agree with much of what has been written – appreciate the comments.
To clarify – I am not suggesting what I think the decisions should have been – merely quoting the rules and how they apply.
With regards to the penalty try – “definitely” does not come into it. Why do people have this misconception?
If the video ref thinks Carney probably scores, it’s a try, if he he thinks Carney probably doesn’t score then it’s not. If he is on the fence, then benefit of the doubt applies and it’s a try. Rightly or wrongly, this is what the rule states, I don’t think it was how it was applied on Wednesday.
With regards to the “charge down” – the rules do not draw any distinction between “blocking” and “attempting to catch” so I’m not sure where you are getting this distinction from. I agree it would have been hugely controversial (and unjust) to award the try, but I also think it would have been consistent with the rules as they are written.
As EagleJack stated – the problem is the rules – they are often vague and so are hard to enforce with any consistency…