Years from now, 2016 will be the year remembered for the death of the penalty try.
Just a few instances of this were Round 5, Warriors versus Roosters in Gosford, Warriors player taken out by Aidan Guerra, no penalty try. Round 7, Tigers versus Storm, Chris Lawrence taken out by Richie Kennar, no penalty try. Round 8, Cowboys versus Eels, Corey Norman takes out Michael Morgan, no penalty try. Round 15, Roosters versus Warriors, Joseph Manu gets taken out by Ken Maumalo, and, you guessed it, no penalty try.
If you search for ‘rugby league penalty try’ on the website SportsDefinitions.com, a penalty try is defined as “Awarded to the attacking team if a player has been fouled in the act of being prevented from scoring a try.” In all four of the above examples the referees followed that guideline perfectly, with the exception of actually giving a try.
On each of those occasions the explanation given to bemused audiences was ‘too much doubt over whether or not the attacking player would have grounded the ball’. That is of course utter nonsense, because unless defending players had Go-Go-Gadget Arms, there is no way in the world would they have got to the ball.
So why do referees refuse to award penalty tries? Perhaps they don’t want to have too much of an impact on the game (which is presumably the same reason as they don’t call offsides, forward passes, incorrect play-the-balls or send players off anymore.)
If that is the case however they should really check the stats; out of the above four, two teams won despite missing out on the penalty try and 2 teams lost. The Roosters in Round 15 scored in the set immediately following their disallowed penalty try, however the conversion was missed. They went on to lose that game by two points.
Had they got the penalty try the game would have been very different. It would have gone to golden point at 12-12. So, instead of leading 6-0, they lead 4-0, conceded three penalty goals in a row and ended up losing 12-10.
If it had been 6-0, the Warriors wouldn’t have taken all the penalties and the Roosters may well have won the game.
Wests Tigers too, could attribute their Round 7 loss to the Storm to the penalty try they never got. It was 4-4 at the time and should have been 10-4. However, the Tigers opted to settle for the penalty goal, eventually losing 19-18 in golden point. That wasn’t even the only golden point finish though.
The Warriors were fortunate enough to score a 32-28 golden point win over the Roosters in Round 5 after missing out on a penalty try. That was an exceptionally dumb call too, because Aidan Guerra managed to stay on the field despite the obvious professional foul.
Even when the Cowboys held out the Eels in round 8 the game was in the balance. The Eels were in front 16-14 after trailing 14-0. The Cowboys missed out on a penalty try but took advantage of Corey Norman being sin binned to take a 28-16 lead, eventually winning 32-16.
I sincerely hope that the NRL referees start awarding penalty tries again, because they are severely harming teams if they do not.
Tom G
Guest
I think the reason that they aaren't allowing penalty tries is glaringly obvious. RL is obsessed with try awarding analysis predicated on doubt, hence the Bunker and its predecessor the TMO. How many bloody replays do we have to endure now after a try has been scored? All manner of judgement and discretion has been removed from the ref so how the hell can they make a call based entirely upon something that may have happened?
Pot Stirrer
Guest
The NRL needs to stop listening to CH *9 and Fox sports commentators. If they start awarding a few peenalty tries players will soon stop with the professional foul in try scoring positions. Shouldnt the advantage always go to the attacking team ? i mean if a ball is grounded simultanesly then thats given a try.
Dave
Guest
To say that it would have gone to golden point if it was a penalty try is complete nonsense. If the penalty try was awarded, everything that followed would have been completely different to what actually happened. The Roosters could have won by 30. The Warriors could have won by 30. And yes, it could have gone to golden point, but the point is that if you alter one thing like that then you alter all that follows.
steveng
Roar Rookie
The Roosters scored 5 min later but didn't convert.
Boz
Guest
Well said Ken.
Woody08
Guest
I think the reluctance to award tires is also shown by the bunker boys who nit pick every try and look for reasons to not award one. This is not how Rugby League was meant to be refereed.
Ken
Guest
It's not just a subjective rule, it's poorly constructed. Even ignoring the subjectivity required, there's no guideline of how certain the referee has to be. We've all seen players drop the ball over the line without another player in sight and we've all seen players manage to ground balls that they had no right to get close to. What level of certainty is required? For mine, it's a 'penalty try' - the word penalty indicating that it is instigated by the defending team, so base it on the behaviour of the defending team. If they purposely foul a player to kill the play, it's because they think a try is on. That's enough for me. All of this is hypothetical of course. The refs last night made a decision consistent with previous rulings and well within the rule as it stands.
Freycinet1803
Roar Rookie
Agree with your comments about what won and lost them the game, but I feel the problem is with the wording of the rule. "Opinion, would" ... it is too subjective. Did the unfair play directly affect the opportunity for a try? Yes. Penalty try. Simplify the rule and eliminate subjectivity.
Freycinet1803
Roar Rookie
Rugby definitely have a better ruling on penalty tries IMO.
MrJSquishy
Roar Pro
"Penalty try : 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. A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts irrespective of where the offence occurred." The rules clearly state that it is the opinion of the referee. A bouncing ball gives no guarantee that the player will definitely ground it. To me, the correct decision was made: 10 minutes in the bin. They had 13 on 12 for 10 minutes. They should have taken more advantage. And with 60 minutes left in the game, it really had little impact on the result. All this, could, should, would, 2 points difference etc. is a bit of a clutch. The game may have changed completely if the penalty try was awarded. In my opinion, NRL is all about momentum. They had the momentum, they got to a situation where they were 13 on 12 for 10 minutes and didn't take advantage. That is what lost them the game, not the award/non-award of a penalty try.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
For a penalty try to be awarded, I'm pretty sure the rule states that in the opinion of the referee a try would definitely have been scored. The wording is what makes penalty tries in league so rare. There are more in union because of different wording, a try would probably have been scored.
pjm
Roar Rookie
Because then they have to give the other team one to even it up.
pete bloor
Guest
Looking at a rule book mine says "The referee may award a penalty try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the play of the defending team". It never says unequivocal or with absolute certainty. The qualification of "opinion" allows for a subject element of assumption in determining the outcome. I think the commentators skip the opinion part.
Dan
Guest
If the the wording of the rule was adjusted to something along those lines, I would support that. Reduces variables that lead to inconsistency.
Dan
Guest
The Lyon penalty try was wrong then and is still wrong now.
Ken
Guest
We've been heading this way for years. Last nights decision was consistent but I too would like to see it handled differently Personally I think any professional foul in a try-scoring situation should be a penalty try. This removes the silly judgement of how likely the player was to score - or more accurately, it makes the defender decide.
Wasted1
Guest
I completely agree, the roosters have been holding down too long when they get caught in trouble ever since robinson took over. Why they refuse to use the sin bin in these circumstances is beyond me. It is blatant infringing to slow the speed of the game, and should be penalized properly. It is something i want to see used more often, especially when it comes to infringing in the ruck and offside. Going back to the penalty try rulings, i honestly think that referee's are too scared to make the decision anymore. I thought the Roosters had a right to feel aggrieved. There was no one getting to the ball but the roosters player the other warriors players were a good 3-4 steps behind him even after he was interfered with.
db
Guest
You're correct about never being able to be certain about whether a try would have been scored in the absence of the foul. If we read the rule in this manner then a penalty try will never be awarded. The assertion in the article is that something has changed to the point where adjudications(not just penalty tries) that were once made are no longer being made. There have been penalty tries awarded in Grand Finals that had significant doubt over whether a try would have been scored without the foul being committed. It's hard to imagine such decisions being made in the 2016 Grand Final.
E-Meter
Guest
Then Kenny-Dowall was offside late in the game, after the referee had warned him earlier that he would be in the sin bin for further infringements. Nothing happened.
Dan
Guest
"... unless defending players had Go-Go-Gadget Arms, there is no way in the world would they have got to the ball." Irrelevant if the defenders would have arrived first. When the ball is still bouncing and rolling in goal you cannot equivocally say the attacking player will ground without error.