Pat richards penalty try

User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 5309
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm

Re: Pat richards penalty try

Post by jirskyr » Sat 22 Mar, 2014 11:48 am

I agree, should have been penalty try.

I think the refs were trying to say that his foot was out before he would have grounded the ball, but they were wrong wrong wrong to say it happened before he even got hit.

The only reason his foot went out was because we was struck high. Richards loses control of his limbs after the contact, you see his arms drop and his legs fly out. His left leg literally flops over the line and he drops the footy as his arms hit the deck.

Patty doesn't dive for the corner, he absorbs the contact. So if you are 6 feet in the air when you get clobbered, you aren't going to touch down gracefully once your arms and legs stop working.


User avatar
innsaneink
Member
Member
Posts: 27042
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: ...ahead of you....

Post by innsaneink » Sat 22 Mar, 2014 11:51 am

Yeh he didnt finish well....very awkward, it contributed to the decision imo

User avatar
Yossarian
Member
Member
Posts: 9317
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Central Coast

Post by Yossarian » Sat 22 Mar, 2014 12:45 pm

jirskyr wrote:I agree, should have been penalty try.

I think the refs were trying to say that his foot was out before he would have grounded the ball, but they were wrong wrong wrong to say it happened before he even got hit.

The only reason his foot went out was because we was struck high. Richards loses control of his limbs after the contact, you see his arms drop and his legs fly out. His left leg literally flops over the line and he drops the footy as his arms hit the deck.

Patty doesn't dive for the corner, he absorbs the contact. So if you are 6 feet in the air when you get clobbered, you aren't going to touch down gracefully once your arms and legs stop working.
It was a dud call. Well more accurately the justification was incorrect. Personally I think it should have been a penalty try. If he doesn't get hit he scores and the contact was illegal. It was not as obvious as the 99 GF one but still.

With Pat and Nofa you get a good contrast between the old and new style of finishing for a winger. Pat's very much of the absorb the contact and plant the ball school. Part of is his size but a lot of I suspect is just a product of when his age.

larrycorowa
Member
Member
Posts: 1953
Joined: Fri 19 Feb, 2010 1:47 pm

Post by larrycorowa » Sat 22 Mar, 2014 2:03 pm

too much doubt for a penalty try for mine. video ref shud get sacked for incorrect explanation

User avatar
rossop
Member
Member
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon 11 Jul, 2011 12:43 pm
Location: South Coast NSW

Post by rossop » Sat 22 Mar, 2014 3:08 pm

Coulda gone either way I reckon


magpiecol
Member
Member
Posts: 2845
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 3:02 pm

Post by magpiecol » Sat 22 Mar, 2014 3:48 pm

larrycorowa wrote:too much doubt for a penalty try for mine. video ref shud get sacked for incorrect explanation

It was going to be a penalty try because the ref asked the video ref if there was any reason that a penalty try should not be awarded.

The video ref said that Richards leg was out BEFORE he was hit illegally.

Blind Freddy could see that that was incorrect.

Should have been a PT.

User avatar
Jazza
Member
Member
Posts: 1980
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 1:38 am
Location: Glen Alpine

Post by Jazza » Sat 22 Mar, 2014 6:58 pm

Yeah I am a bit confused with what the video ref said afterwards with his explanation. But with a penalty try the referee has to be 100% sure that he would of scored. I am not sure he 100% would of scored. Maybe 90% or even 95%. But you can't really compare that to the Jamie Ainscough high tackle on Craig Smith in the 1999 Grand Final because that hapened nowhere near the sideline.

I could see why they didn't award the penalty try despite the explanation given afterwards.
Gee its grouse at hardware house!

Post Reply