Penalty try

[Eagles2nv]

RE: I don't understand

Yeah i wonder about that aswell. But its does make sense. There is a difference between a penalty try and an 8 point try.

Wish it was an 8 pointer, would have potentially changed the game.

 

[rosco]

RE: I don't understand

Why can't it be a penalty try and a sin bin? It was a blatant professional foul which in the last few rounds was a sin bin.

 

[Chip and Chase]

RE: I don't understand

The sin bin can be used for professional fouls that are carried out to prevent a team scoring. If you then award a penalty try for the offence it stands to reason that you are not going to sin bin the player as well.

You could award a penalty try and send someone off if it was an act of foul play that prevented the try in the first place.

 

[Jono]

RE: I don't understand

@Napper I'll tell you why:

You get an 8 point try when you get the ball down and score the try. The reason for this is that you get the try, you take the conversion from wherever, then the ref blows a penalty in front of the goals.

Because Lyon didn't actually get the ball down, it was a penalty try with the conversion in front of the goals.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

The penalty try should have been awarded AND he should have gone to the bin.

It's unbelievable how Cronk's non sin binning against the Nots started a spate of sin binnings for about 3 weeks and then.............nothing. Can we just get some consistency ?

For mine, the sin bin is there and it should be used when its warranted. Not ignored for 20 weeks then flogged to death.

Anyone know the rule? When a player commits a professional foul the other team gets a penalty PLUS the player get's binned. Why different when they give the try? No logic to it from what I can see. Roosters were in effect not penalised for the foul, they just let Manly keep the try we would have had anyway. ??

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

RE: I don't understand

@Napper I'll tell you why:

You get an 8 point try when you get the ball down and score the try. The reason for this is that you get the try, you take the conversion from wherever, then the ref blows a penalty in front of the goals.

Because Lyon didn't actually get the ball down, it was a penalty try with the conversion in front of the goals.

100% right and also adding that the 8 point try comes from a foul after a try is actually scored ( eg Intentional elbow to head on way through)

 

[simon64]

The penalty try should have been awarded AND he should have gone to the bin.

It's unbelievable how Cronk's non sin binning against the Nots started a spate of sin binnings for about 3 weeks and then.............nothing. Can we just get some consistency ?

For mine, the sin bin is there and it should be used when its warranted. Not ignored for 20 weeks then flogged to death.

Anyone know the rule? When a player commits a professional foul the other team gets a penalty PLUS the player get's binned. Why different when they give the try? No logic to it from what I can see. Roosters were in effect not penalised for the foul, they just let Manly keep the try we would have had anyway. ??

100% right SER8.

In soccer, if a player commits a foul as the last line of defense to deny a scoring opportunity, he is sent off and a penalty given (if it's in the penalty area) which 9 times out of 10 is a goal anyway.

Last night, we got the try which Killer would have scored and nothing else. So, in essence, nothing.

 

[Fluffy]

No try for mine. Broke a precedent of being 99.9% certain a try would have been scored. GF is not the time to be doing that. A penalty and 10 mins in the bin. Might have been more useful but que sera sera.

I thought no way could it be a penalty try but 100% had to be 10 in the bin and a penalty.

If I was the roosters I would be very happy with the outcome they got there.

 

[Dan]

The penalty try should have been awarded AND he should have gone to the bin.

It's unbelievable how Cronk's non sin binning against the Nots started a spate of sin binnings for about 3 weeks and then.............nothing. Can we just get some consistency ?

For mine, the sin bin is there and it should be used when its warranted. Not ignored for 20 weeks then flogged to death.

Anyone know the rule? When a player commits a professional foul the other team gets a penalty PLUS the player get's binned. Why different when they give the try? No logic to it from what I can see. Roosters were in effect not penalised for the foul, they just let Manly keep the try we would have had anyway. ??

Tackling someone without the ball has never been a sin binning so a penalty try is sufficient

 

[CussCuss]

"Professional foul

A professional foul is a deliberate breach of the rules in order to prevent a scoring opportunity developing. An individual committing this offence will be sin binned by the referee.

Professional fouls may be committed by a defender holding down the tackled player after a break has been made, in order to allow teammates to reform in defence. Interfering in the play, while making little or no attempt to return to an onside position, or tackling or impeding the progress of a player not in possession when a try may possibly be scored can also be penalised as professional fouls. The latter situation may result in a penalty try being awarded."

http://en.rugbyleaguewiki.org/wiki/Professional_foul
This page was last modified on 21 July 2013, at 23:49.

NFI if this is an official definition, but sounds like textbook to me. Penalty try and a sinbin, they go hand in hand.

 

[seaeagle10]

As a former ref I was taught that if a player commits a professional foul he is to be sin binned.The sin sin was introduced to get rid of professional fouls and to ""cool players down"" when things got a bit heated. It was over used for foul play and got changed again to be for only repeated infrigments and professional fouls. A penalty try can only be awarded if in the referees mind the player would have definately scored a try, but was interferred with by a defending player.
Was it a penalty try , in my opinion no ( still take it though) but a penalty where the infrigment took place and the offending player sent to the bin. So in all of this no matter where it was or wasnt a penalty try the roosters player should have been binned. Just another example of that idiot Hayne getting it wrong.

 

[ManlyBacker]

In a GF I'd take the points every time.

I stand by that statement. Points are all that matter. We could have knocked on in the first tackle so it was a huge advantage to get 4 pts and a kick in front. Whether he should have been binned there are good arguments presented by posters here. Looking at the above he probably should have been binned. And I agree on an 8 pt try, that only happens if there is an illegal play, such as Slater sliding his legs into a player, while they are in the process of attempting to score.

 

[Jethro]

The penalty try should have been awarded AND he should have gone to the bin.

It's unbelievable how Cronk's non sin binning against the Nots started a spate of sin binnings for about 3 weeks and then.............nothing. Can we just get some consistency ?

For mine, the sin bin is there and it should be used when its warranted. Not ignored for 20 weeks then flogged to death.

Anyone know the rule? When a player commits a professional foul the other team gets a penalty PLUS the player get's binned. Why different when they give the try? No logic to it from what I can see. Roosters were in effect not penalised for the foul, they just let Manly keep the try we would have had anyway. ??

http://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEditor/Documents/NRL%20Rules%20book%202013FINAL.pdf