Saddened! wrote:Penalty try rules aren't what they used to be. They have to be certain the player would have scored. Can you ever be certain when the ball is bouncing towards the dead ball line like that? Even if you say he would definitely have got there, you can't say he would have grounded it without knocking on. It's just never given these days. The only way it could be is if the ball settled to a stop on the floor in the field of play. If you think that's a penalty try, show me one that has been given in the last 5 years. It was definitely the right call.
Now whether the rule should be changed to benefit the attacker in that situation rather than the cynicism of the defender is another matter entirely, but in the current rules you're never getting that as a penalty try.
To be fair the ball rolled towards the dead ball line not bounce , making it easier to put a hand on it
Joined: Feb 23 2009 Posts: 2407 Location: Springfield
Saddened! wrote:It would be anyway, no matter how we lose. I think [fimg=][/fimg]there's a good chance of that next week too, depending on how much damage the disciplinary committee do to an already decimated team. We were awful today by our standards.
I agree on changing the rules. It should be 'most likely score' rather 'certain'.
Can you tell me the squad numbers of your 17 today to prove how decimated you were?
'I've done things i'm not proud of. And the things i am proud of,.......well they're disgusting'
Joined: Aug 24 2006 Posts: 5214 Location: Another dimension
Moe syslak wrote:Can you tell me the squad numbers of your 17 today to prove how decimated you were?
3,5,7,8,21,24,25 out injured, 2,4,6,11,16 playing injured/ just returning from injury (since May in the case of 4). There are injuries in the post-25 but don’t want to be accused of number pumping. This was probably our strongest team since good Friday.
wire-till-i-die wrote:To be fair the ball rolled towards the dead ball line not bounce , making it easier to put a hand on it
I never thought for a moment that a penalty try would have been awarded, they're as rare as hen's teeth these days. Today's rules have just about made them extinct.
Saddened! wrote:Which isn't enough to give a penalty try. Had the ball stopped before going out, it'd be given.
Well, Mr Makinson seemed fairly convinced he was going to score hence the blatant cheating. If it helps you to reconcile it by calling it professionalism then do so but it was cheating. 10 mins in the bin with 5 mins left is hardly a punishment.
Still, lets hope the karma gods have made a note ready for next week.
Joined: Oct 06 2005 Posts: 2848 Location: Warrington
Well if Knowles and Welsby don't receive bans for the final then it's an absolute joke. The loss of those two and Walmsley - and I'd definitely be putting Leeds as favourites.
Joined: Feb 07 2005 Posts: 8642 Location: Home sweet home
ratticusfinch wrote:Well if Knowles and Welsby don't receive bans for the final then it's an absolute joke. The loss of those two and Walmsley - and I'd definitely be putting Leeds as favourites.
What did welsby do.not that it matters he.ll be cleared to play in the final as will knowles
Joined: Oct 06 2005 Posts: 2848 Location: Warrington
No chance Knowles will play after what he did, criminal if he does. Welsby’ tackle a few years ago was a belter but nowadays he should receive a ban as he made contact with the head. BMM got 2 games for a lot less and Bentley and others have received bans for less this season.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 134 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
I am the hash browns of rlfans 
