Penalty try? & Tedesco hit

[Tigerheart_returns]

I don't know what a bloke has to do to get awarded one, but in my opinion (at the game) it looked like one should have been awarded. Was the call that there was some doubt as to whether the Tiger player (can't remember his name) would have grounded the ball?

Have to agree with JT on the Tedesco post penalty - wtf?

Overall, I felt for the boys, they must have been gutted but the signs were encouraging, I thought most of the new faces performed exceptionally well, considering who we were playing.

 

[maxxy86]

It was after Tedesco dropped the ball…..so in a way its fair play unless the refs, touchies or the bunker intervene. We defended softly that gave them the chance up the other end and scored with us having 1 less in the defence line.

 

[NJLM78]

In the first half the bunker was happy to review a decision when JAC touched the ball before it went out over the touch-in-goal line. The Tigers couldn't have a 20m restart and had a goal line drop out instead. In the second half Tedesco is hit high, the Storm go down the field an score and then after the try is awarded the player is placed on report. We should have had a penalty 10m out instead of conceding points at the other end of the field.
I don't understand the penalty try. They awarded one to Manly in the 2013 grand final. Yet in a Round 7 game 2 and a half years on, no penalty try.

 

[NJLM78]

It was after Tedesco dropped the ball…..so in a way its fair play unless the refs, touchies or the bunker intervene. We defended softly that gave them the chance up the other end and scored with us having 1 less in the defence line.

\
\
I was at the game and haven't watched a replay. I thought it went behind him and he fumbled for the ball as he was hit. Regardless of a knock on or knock back though, you cant then collect a player high, leave him on KO'd on the deck and have play on.

 

[maxxy86]

Unfortunately he was put on report after the try tbey scored…...so I see it if we defended better after we spilt the ball and not let them score it would have come back for a penalty.

 

[stevied]

Poor officiating. I don't agree that it was accidental and, whether accidental or not it, it was reckless. I agree, it should have gone back for a penalty to the Tigers. The penalty try was 50/50\. Lawrence is not the quickest or most agile player and he doesn't have great hands either. The second half try to Koro was clearly from a forward pass just as the Storm's first try came after a knock on. I didn't see the replay of the Lawrence forward pass no try. Was it forward? Together with the trip on Moses, which should have been a sin bin, The Tigers were hard done by again. Not saying that their own mistakes didn't also contribute to the loss but we were definitely ripped off ….....

 

[Pawsandclaws]

I think the tripping incident should have resulted in a send off. The NRL is lucky a player has not been injured by this act of foul play.

 

[Tuiaki_Chicken_Wings]

Poor officiating. I don't agree that it was accidental and, whether accidental or not it, it was reckless. I agree, it should have gone back for a penalty to the Tigers. The penalty try was 50/50\. Lawrence is not the quickest or most agile player and he doesn't have great hands either. The second half try to Koro was clearly from a forward pass just as the Storm's first try came after a knock on. **I didn't see the replay of the Lawrence forward pass no try. Was it forward?** Together with the trip on Moses, which should have been a sin bin, The Tigers were hard done by again. Not saying that their own mistakes didn't also contribute to the loss but we were definitely ripped off ….....

Was standing right in line with it. Touchie was standing behind the pass and called it forward, was flat IMO. Ive seen alot worse not given. Amazes me how the touchies work the sidelines, I thought one was supposed to be inline with the 10m and one inline with the ruck?

 

[maxxy86]

A penalty try has to be 100% going to be a try, so I was fine with that. The attempted trip should have seen 10 in the bin IMO.

 

[mike]

I think the tripping incident should have resulted in a send off. The NRL is lucky a player has not been injured by this act of foul play.

I agree, should have been an automatic send off. Very dangerous, that's one way to end up with a broken leg. A cowardly act.

 

[mike]

I couldn't have given a penalty try he was too far from the ball and could not be sure he would have scored. Penalty and sin bin was the correct decision.

 

[Juro]

I think the logic of the penalty try not being given was that the ball kicked up on the next bounce. If it had been a friendlier bounce, they may have given it, but there was just too much doubt. I could live with that.

Having our try disallowed while Melbourne's was given, both off line-ball forward passes, was hard to swallow. We just never seem to get the luck with these calls.

No doubt about the trip needing a harsher penalty. Deliberate and dangerous!

 

[Love_the_WestsTigers]

The Lawrence one HAD to be a penalty try.
No arguments what so ever, he had miles of space to gather the ball and dive over

 

[stevetiger]

I thought the Lawrence decision was terrible.

 

[Tigertigertiger]

The Lawrence one wasn't 100% clear cut so while I agree he most probably scores there is still doubt

The trip should have been 10 in the bin, it was deliberate,dangerous and what if he broke Moses leg in the act?

 

[tigermac88]

A penalty try has to be 100% going to be a try, so I was fine with that. The attempted trip should have seen 10 in the bin IMO.

That's where the problem lays with penalty tries… You can never be 100% certain a try will be scored in any situation. There will always be an argument for some doubt.

 

[yeti]

I really think the officials 'expect' a team to win and a team to lose and they officiate accordingly. A team like the Tigers will not get the rub of the green when up against teams such as the Storm. I don't think it's deliberate - just an unconscious reaction to events as they unfold. In a close game, most of the 50/50 calls will go to the more favoured team. For the Tigers to beat the Storm by a point, they probably need to be a 10 point better side.

 

[underdog]

I couldn't have given a penalty try he was too far from the ball and could not be sure he would have scored. Penalty and sin bin was the correct decision.

The thing is Lawrence was making ground at the rate of knots.

He would have comfortable gotten to the ball with half a metre to spare.

 

[Russell]

I would think that - if Rowdy effort was not a penalty try then a penalty try will never, ever be given.

You can never be 100% sure that the try would have been scored, because it wasn't.
The point was, if was close enough, and the player interferes with the player in possibly scoring the try - it should be awarded.

I will be racked off if in the future if a penalty try is awarded.

 

[TrueTiger]

Russ,we have been around for awhile and I have played plenty of games where that particular interference with a player in pursuit of scoring a try and being held back is a penalty try every time…people will tell us the usual exscuses,Rowdy MIGHT not have got there,the video wasn't clear enough etc,etc,...He was INTERFERED with while not in possession of the ball,chasing the ball which he was quite entitled to do.. ..result PENALTY TRY....