Never seen a decision like that in 32 years of following RL

A penalty try given after the try has been scored



I thought if you were fouled in the act of scoring(which in a way Halley was) it should be:
1)take the conversion from where the try was scored
2)penalty under the sticks



No consolation to you lot I know but what a match for the neutrals

From what I saw of it (from the Southstand at Headingley so not the best of views) He wasn't taken out in the act of scoring, he was taken out a good couple of metres away from try line.

Thats why I put (IN A WAY)


if he had not got got up from the tackle I dont think they would have given a penalty try

Must have thought Halley would have put the ball down under the sticks had he not been taken out like that.

Correct.

That was my assumption.

and that warrants a penalty try


I dont think so

I do, did you see the arm take him off his feet all together?

He would have easily gone under sticks and put ball down, of course that is just my opinion.

Also the opinion of Mr Alibiert and Mr Ganson. I agree with it too. He was in, he had the extra second or two on the defender.

So back to my original point....conversion then a penalty under the posts

There's no way that was a penalty try. He wasn't prevented from scoring by foul play. There was foul play and he picked himself up, carried on and scored in spite it.

It wasn't even an eight pointer.

Under the rules if a player is prevented from scoring closer to the posts by a foul the correct decision is a penalty try, much like if he was prevented from scoring altogether. Took a lot of explaining today, but it is correct.

I'd assumed that the play had been called dead before Halley recovered to score. Certainly the linesman had his flag up, did Ganson blow his whistle? Seemed bizarre to award a penalty try otherwise.

In my opinion that was not a penalty try.A penalty try is awarded when a player is fouled and prevented from scoring a certain try.An eight pointer comes about when a player is fouled AFTER scoring a try.Four for the try , two for the conversion and a further two for a penalty in front of the posts.

So if Halley had gone down like a sack of tatties rather than playing on? Would that have been a penalty try? It would bo a bizarre decision to award a penanlty try in that case but not if he actually got up and scored like he did.
I know what I'm trying to say...

No. If Halley had gone down and stayed down it would not have been a penalty try. He was too far out and there was a defender coming at him.
There is no certainty he would have scored without being fouled.He did the right thing by playing on and scoring.I think I know what Im trying to say as well.

I seem to remember (quite a while ago) that if the player was fouled and then scored the officials could give the conversion and THEN award a penalty, thereby making it an 8 point try?

I don't even think the Catalans player was sin-binned. That should surely have been a certainty.

how people can say ganson is against bradford is beyond me. they seemed to get alot of decisons yeaterday including 2 video ref tries that were very dodgy and the penalty try. just shows how ppor they are with these and playing a poor side IMO and still losing. very funny though

both teams defences were as dodgy as the bbcs clock

Remind me again...was Ganson the Video Ref yesterday?

I thought the first try was dodgy and I was surprised it was given, but the others looked clear-cut OK. Cats may have knocked on for the try after Platt's disaster, but even if they did it only cancelled out our first try.

So what would have been the decision if the try/foul incident had taken place in front of the posts?

A kick from the touchline.

Bradford got a penalty for the foul,hence the term 'penalty try'.So what happened to the conversion of the try ?Should have been an eight pointer.

We got a penalty try for the foul, not a penalty.