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.

Been at the Shandies again. Your logic is astounding. 'Ganson sin't against Bradford because the video ref gave two tries'. Now look really closely and see if you can find the flaw in your argument. Go on. It's there somewhere.

The try had already been scored,he fell short because of the foul but recovered and continued over the line.What would have been the advantage to Bradford had the incident taken place beneath the posts?

None, I don't see why it was given as a penalty try to be honest.

The foul was worthy of a penalty, but we'd scored anyway, so that should have been that.

The eight point try only comes into play if the try scorer is fouled after touching the ball down.

The original kick would be in line from where the try was scored and then the second kick given from under the posts.

It was certainly a strange one. A penalty try is if you fail to score because of an infringement that prevented you from doing so. An eight pointer is if your are subject to foul play in the act of, or immediately after, grounding the ball.

So yes, Halley did touch down not under the posts, and if the VR had decided there was no penalty, that would have been that.

However he decided that a try would have been scored but for the swinging arm. This is not the same "try" as was scored, and it would be wrong to say it should be. The infringement is the unfair play. It saved a possible try under the posts, or nearer the posts. It did not save a try altogether but I don't see why the infringing team should benefit from the fact that they didn't quite decapitate Halley, so that he didn't cross the line, but just twa##ed him around the head enough to still enable him to stagger over the line. If that was the case, now THAT would be a silly and manifestly unfair rule.

So why didn't we get the try and then a penalty try awarded as well?

Seemed to hear Ganson asking the video ref to look at the high tackle but saying that he intended to play the advantage. The 'penalty try' seemed a bit of an afterthought.

Correct decision would have been to award the try and then to deal with the foul. Catalan player should have been carded or placed on report.

When is a 6 point try awarded?

When the player is fouled in the act of scoring a try. For instance, player A smacks player B as he touches down. Play not affected, but additional penalty awarded.

Thanks mate.

So how does this translate into unfair play prevented a try from being scored in an advantageous enough position? A try was scored irrespective of the foul play. Not a penalty try.

Dont be too sure. The TJ was on and Ganson even said be prepared for a Penalty try. He would have still gone to the screen for the same reason had Halley not got up.

Either way it was the correct decision and as for the OP asking about an 8 point try... that is if foul play is committed after the try is scored.

Yep, Halley did in fact put the ball down, wothout the act of foul play he would have scored under the posts, can't be any doubt that he would have as he did.

I'm surprised you ask. Your analysis is faulty.

1. There was, undoubtedly, a penalty offence in the lead-up to the 'try'.

2. The referee had 2 choices:
(a) give the Bulls the "advantage" and let Halley's try stand where he touched it down; or
(b) award the penalty.

In this case he also had the choice to refer the incident to the VR but the decision making process is the same, whether by the ref or by the VR.

3. This incident was correctly referred to the VR to consider, as it happened within the last play. I am assuming you agree that the VR can take action on any penalty offence he spots, by either attack or defence?

4. The referee obviously had his doubts as to whether or not he should allow "the advantage", and so passed it on to the VR.

4. The VR could also ignore the penalty, and allow the advantage, or he can award the penalty. He (rightly) chose to award the penalty.

5. It is a correct analysis to say that, but for the unfair play, a try would have been scored. Therefore it is a penalty try.

Your mistake is in assuming that, because Halley went on to touch down at a point after the penalty, this in some way binds the officials, but it doesn't. If they decide to award the penalty, Halley's actual touch-down is no longer relevant. The relevant play stops at the point of the penalised offence.

Think of a game with NO video referee. Ganson would then have to make the call. It would make no difference to the methodology. He could either play the advantage, and award a try where touched down, or NOT play the advantage, and award a penalty for the clothesline. Then, he has to decide what penalty he's going to give - and one, 100% legitimate, option is a penalty try.

Oh and obviously, the fact that the ref, like everyone else, knew Halley would have scored in a far better position but for the foul, undoubtedly and rightly will have convinced him that to ignore the penalty would not be any "advantage" to the Bulls, and would be a possible advantage for the offending team.

I'm surprised by your surprise. Nervous bunch, aren't we?

I would have thought you'd know I have a touching faith in the meaning of words.

Yes, and they mean (naturally) just what I said.

I was surprised only cos your two brains would not normally fail in this way. I reckon either old age and decrepitude or else a heavy night.

This thread has clearly attained a level way above us mere mortals now...

I'm not sure what you mean, but if you too are confused by the "scoring of a try" which was apparently ignored. it would assist you to compare the situation under discussion with the theory of branes and infinite parallel universes.

[size=59In one of these, I talk sense.[/size

If I was wrong I'd blame [url=http://viewtopic.php?p=13919775#13919775this[/url, but since I'm not...

Not if you agree with me, you're not