Should the Rebels have been awarded a penalty try?

I'm not saying it's malicious. I'm just saying the tackler takes responsibility. He does not have to attempt to tackle. When he chooses so, he takes the risk.

Instinctive, self defense. I often find myself doing it at touch football when there is an unexpected collision imminent, it is all about protecting your organs. it's primal.

Glad we got that settled Wax.

Yes I hear you. I heard it the first time Crash.

Because Hooper was not.

What I wrote is precisely what I meant CG. You are free to let it pass or not. Rona’s foul play was the only thing that prevented Koroibete’s try. Ref got the call wrong.

Yes but it is the referees discretion as to whether or not the offence prevented a probable try. Clearly in this instance he didn't think so because no penalty try was awarded. "Pursuant to the laws of rugby, Williams was compelled to award a penalty try" - that's what you wrote. If you had wrote - he is compelled to consider the award of a penalty try - then I would have let it pass. Ok you can stop now. I think we have both had a fair crack at it.

Thanks Marty. The first line is right “the only thing that prevented a try”.

CG, in a foul play act that directly stops a try attempt, by the law, he is compelled to award a penalty try and issue a card. He got it wrong. “A player guilty of this must be cautioned and temporarily suspended (yellow) or sent off (red).”

We absolute disagree. There’s no chance Hooper is in any position at any point to stop Koro’s try.

I'm not overstating anything at all but simply looking at the situation immediately before the foul play. There is reasonable evidence for Hooper to be considered a relevant defender. By that I mean a defender that might have had some influence over what played out. You say absolutely not. We disagree.

Yes I know what you think should have happened. But don't say the referee was compelled to award a penalty try as if he has no discretion. Leave it with you.

The ref awarded a penalty for foul play. What should have happened is that he awarded a penalty for foul play which directly resulted in a try not scored - which is both a penalty try (7 points) and yellow. Very poor call.

Sorry CG, but you are attempting to overstate the affect of Koro's final steps. Whilst Koro's final swerve towards the middle certainly steers him closer to Hooper's line, it is only Rona's illegal impact which brings him into Hooper's "path". If you take Rona and his no arms tackle out of the picture altogether, and Koro & Hooper run the exact same lines and Koro takes the exact same final steps mere metres from the tryline and with Hooper behind and to the right, there is no chance he stops that try from 6 out. No Rona means Koro's body height is not high and behind but low and to the ground. Even if Hooper is able to reach Koro at the first point he comes into frame, he's neither getting high enough on the body to disrupt the ball or stop momentum from taking Koro over. Every way you look at this, sans-foul play, Korobete scores.

I may be wrong on this, but my observation on the interpretation of the law by referees and the awarding of penalty tries occurs when the only thing that has prevented a try and could have prevented a try is an act of foul play. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

If the referee had awarded a penalty try then yes he is compelled to impose a YC however he is not compelled to award a penalty try. Whether or not a penalised offence prevents a probable try is very much a matter of opinion on his part.

Crash - Not sure why you are focusing on Koroibete having already outstripped Hooper. I have more or less concurred with that however its not relevant. What is relevant is Hooper's position immediately before the foul play occurred. Koroibete's momentum and direction changed as I have said. These two factors allowed Hooper to be closer. How close? - Im looking at 2 still frames of the match coverage. One a close up from behind as Koroibete props off his left leg for the second time. I see Hooper's hand appear in the frame. The second from in front which shows Koroibete bracing for impact and cutting back across Hooper's path. Close enough to be considered a relevant defender in my opinion.

Not sure if you are replying to CG or me, Marty. For what it’s worth, you are right, Rona could have halted Koro’s progress with a legal tackle. Unfortunately, he did not. What Rona might have intended has no bearing on what he actually did. Neither does Koro’s direction into contact make any difference – a ball carrier is not obliged to allow his defender enough time and/or space to affect a legal tackle. What Rona did do was execute a no arms shoulder charge which is illegal. That part is not in discussion – the referee awarded a penalty. In open play, a shoulder charge may not in and of itself elicit a yellow. However, in this instance, Rona’s foul play directly stopped a Rebels try being scored. Pursuant to the laws of rugby, Williams was compelled to award a penalty try and deploy a yellow card. He did not. Very poor call.

Sorry, I disagree. Rona could have halted Koroibete's progress with what was considered a legal tackle. The illegality, if there was one, only impacts the nature of the tackle not whether or not a tackle could have been made. And honestly, I think whether or not it was an illegal tackle is a bit of a 'grey area. From watching the replay, I think that Rona was in the process of raising his arms to affect a legal tackle but Koroibete's change of direction meant that contact occurred sooner than anticipated.

CG, Koriobete had already comprehensively outstripped Hooper and was running around him at pace. At the point of impact with Rona, post-step, Koriobete was six metres from the tryline with all the momentum and with Hooper on his flanks. Best case scenario, the pivot might have allowed Hooper to stop a between-the-posts dot down. Without Rona's illegal tackle, there is no danger Hooper is stopping a try from his proximity and with Koriobete's trajectory.