WWW.RLFANS.COM :: View topic

Gregory Peck wrote:When did they change the rule? When Flynn had the ball reaped out in 2 on 1 tackle over the line as he was about to place it down, i assumed it would be a penalty try, not merely a penalty 10 metres back frm where the incident occured.

billyfax wrote:Worrincy already had hold of the ball and was trying to steal before the second player joined.

Therefore doubt is cast on whether the attacking player would have scored. As he could easily have been held up. A penalty try can only be awarded if an infringment of rules CLEARLY STOPS A GUARANTEED SCORE!

Had worrincy been the second player to join the tackle and stolen the ball then a penalty try wold have been considered. As the second tackler knows
he is no longer allowed to steal and such a move could stop the score.

John S wrote:Well done for bringing some sanity to the 'lets bash the ref' fans.

Haighy wrote:I think it was last year they changed the ruling that if a 2 on 1 steal occurs in the in-goal area then it isn't a penalty try, just a penalty 10 yards back.

I don't think Bradford deserved their penalty try today however.

the day will come wrote:i think bradford were done by that penalty try as they had scored it should have been a try with a penelty awarded as well an 8 point try would have won them the game

Author:	Gregory Peck [ Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:24 am ]
Post subject:	Penalty Tries
When did they change the rule? When Flynn had the ball reaped out in 2 on 1 tackle over the line as he was about to place it down, i assumed it would be a penalty try, not merely a penalty 10 metres back frm where the incident occured.

Author:	Koloto's Tie Ups [ Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:42 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Penalty Tries
Gregory Peck wrote:When did they change the rule? When Flynn had the ball reaped out in 2 on 1 tackle over the line as he was about to place it down, i assumed it would be a penalty try, not merely a penalty 10 metres back frm where the incident occured. Agent Silverwood taking orders from Dick Turpin and the RFLiars.

Author:	billyfax [ Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:48 am ]
Post subject:
Worrincy already had hold of the ball and was trying to steal before the second player joined. Therefore doubt is cast on whether the attacking player would have scored. As he could easily have been held up. A penalty try can only be awarded if an infringment of rules CLEARLY STOPS A GUARANTEED SCORE! Had worrincy been the second player to join the tackle and stolen the ball then a penalty try wold have been considered. As the second tackler knows he is no longer allowed to steal and such a move could stop the score.

Author:	John S [ Sun Apr 05, 2009 1:08 pm ]
Post subject:
billyfax wrote:Worrincy already had hold of the ball and was trying to steal before the second player joined. Therefore doubt is cast on whether the attacking player would have scored. As he could easily have been held up. A penalty try can only be awarded if an infringment of rules CLEARLY STOPS A GUARANTEED SCORE! Had worrincy been the second player to join the tackle and stolen the ball then a penalty try wold have been considered. As the second tackler knows he is no longer allowed to steal and such a move could stop the score. Well done for bringing some sanity to the 'lets bash the ref' fans.

Author:	Koloto's Tie Ups [ Sun Apr 05, 2009 2:38 pm ]
Post subject:
John S wrote:Well done for bringing some sanity to the 'lets bash the ref' fans. Has your sense of humour deserted you today?

WWW.RLFANS.COM https://rlfans.com/forums/

Penalty Tries https://rlfans.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=403107	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Haighy [ Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:49 pm ]
Post subject:
I think it was last year they changed the ruling that if a 2 on 1 steal occurs in the in-goal area then it isn't a penalty try, just a penalty 10 yards back. I don't think Bradford deserved their penalty try today however.

Author:	the day will come [ Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:33 pm ]
Post subject:
Haighy wrote:I think it was last year they changed the ruling that if a 2 on 1 steal occurs in the in-goal area then it isn't a penalty try, just a penalty 10 yards back. I don't think Bradford deserved their penalty try today however. i think bradford were done by that penalty try as they had scored it should have been a try with a penelty awarded as well an 8 point try would have won them the game

Author:	Blueboy [ Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:40 pm ]
Post subject:
the day will come wrote:i think bradford were done by that penalty try as they had scored it should have been a try with a penelty awarded as well an 8 point try would have won them the game No it wouldn't.

Author:	Gregory Peck [ Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:27 pm ]
Post subject:
billyfax wrote:Worrincy already had hold of the ball and was trying to steal before the second player joined. Therefore doubt is cast on whether the attacking player would have scored. As he could easily have been held up. A penalty try can only be awarded if an infringment of rules CLEARLY STOPS A GUARANTEED SCORE! Had worrincy been the second player to join the tackle and stolen the ball then a penalty try wold have been considered. As the second tackler knows he is no longer allowed to steal and such a move could stop the score. So what your saying is it should have been a penalty try

Author:	Gregory Peck [ Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:33 pm ]
Post subject:
Haighy wrote:I think it was last year they changed the ruling that if a 2 on 1 steal occurs in the in-goal area then it isn't a penalty try, just a penalty 10 yards back. I don't think Bradford deserved their penalty try today however. Stupid change to rule if true, what's to stop all defending teams from reaping the ball out if they know it will stop a try when they know the worse that will happen is a penalty on the 10 metre line, especially with Widnes, because the odds are against them scoring from the resulting penalty. We need all the penalty tries we can get.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/