It was a high shot from Thurston. Hall still had hold of the ball before Lewis's leg hit his arm and knocked the ball out. Thurston's high shot did not stop him from scoring.

Therefore it was not a penalty try.

The video ref had a shocker really awarding that and denying the second Aussie try after about 20 mins for offside. These things happen though.

I agree with the Australian media. It was never a penalty try.

So at what point do you just give a penalty and ignore the scoring potential ?

10 yards , 5 , 1 , 6 inches ?

What is the punishment for a deliberate attack to the head ?

Since when does making one bad decision mean you ignore a blatant penalty , where is that in the rules ?

Simple questions even for a Kiwi , I await some simple answers ?

The simple answer is in the simple reply I gave above.

Hall was still in control of the ball after Thurstons high challenge. Therefore no penalty try.

So Thurston's head shot had no effect on the act of Hall moving to ground the ball? And I also believe the act of knocking the attacker senseless with your knees (accidental or not) is illegal.

Did you think the penalty try decision in the 2008 World Cup Final was correct?

As clear a penalty try as you will see.
Thurston's illegal contact with the head almost knocked Hall unconscious, and therefore he struggled to ground the ball. If he hadn't been half-comotosed, the probability of him scoring was higher than the probability of him not scoring.

Fella, I've seen players knocked out cold and be unconscious before they hit the ground but they still keep hold of the ball, does that mean they weren't affected by the high shot?

It was a clear penalty try and Thurston should have walked for a deliberate attack to the head, Lewis should have been spoken to about the grubby act of sliding in with his knees. Had Isaac Luke done that every Australian commentator, journalist and pundit would be spewing about it, talk about hypocritical!

So it's ok to smack somebody unconscious as long as they don't let go of the ball ?

How about it's ok to attempt to break somebodys leg , as long as you don't actually succeed in doing it ?

Answer the simple questions I asked you

At what point do you decide it wasn't a try scoring penalty , 10 yards ? , 5 ? , 1 ? , six inches ?

Come on stop being thick

It was a clear high shot but definitely not a penalty try. If anything Hall milked it like Westwood did the other week.

We won't agree on this one, the video ref (in my opinion) got it wrong (the same as he got the Aussie no try call wrong on 20 mins)

Lets move on.

it was definitely the knees that caused the penalty try to be given. to use your conditions, you yourself said it was the knee that knocked the ball out, but then the knees carried on and collided with halls head. this, if lacking intent was wreckless play that is regularly penalised. therefore a penalty was conceded that stopped the try from being scored. penalty try.

You have got to be on a wind up. If you really believe Thurstons attack on Hall had no impact on His attempt to ground the ball then you really are hard of thinking.

Yup. I was willing Hall to score as much as anybody, but that doesn't make it a correct call. Throw in the Chris Lawrence "try" & I was wondering if Steve Mac was the video ref.

So no penalties should be given if the player remains in control of the ball?
You're just trolling!

So because Thurston didn't hit him hard enough it wasn't a penalty ?

So what is hard enough ? , broken nose ? , how many lost teeth constitutes a tackle hard enough to be a penalty ?

Once again , how close to the line is it ok to deliberately smack somebody in the face , and it not to be a penalty ?

FFA , answer a simple bloody question , I know generally Kiwis aren't the cleverest people , but for christs sake , it isn't rocket science

He is a wind up.

He makes it sound like there was an age between Thurston's challenge and Hall's attempted grounding. Watch it in real time, it's no time at all. Hall lost the ball because of the challenge to the head.

He was still in control after Thurstons high shot. Therefore it was NOT a penalty try.

I think we could disagree about this all day. So lets not. You think it was. I think it wasn't. The Aussie media thought it wasn't. The video ref thought it was. He gave the try. Thats all that matters really. It was irrelevent anyway as the Aussies comfortably beat you.

AGAIN.

Do you have to lose the ball to be awarded a head high tackle penalty?

The question here is whether it was a penalty [size=150TRY[/size not a penalty!

Arrrrgh this is just going round in circles. No penalty try for me for the reasons I've stated earlier. I'm not making any further comments on the thread!!!

You keep mentioning the Ausie media as if to recruit their opinions to validate your stance but who cares what they think, they're a set of the most one eyed, hypocritical, jingoistic bigots I've ever had the misfortune to listen to.

Kiwi's , not clever ? , perhaps yes

Kiwi's , bottle out of a lost argument , never thought I'd see that

You my friend, and the Aussie commentators, need to read the actual law relating to a Penalty Try and not what you or they think the law says or even should say...

"the Referee may award a penalty try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team."

There are a few things in that law that you and they need to read. First thing, in his opinion - so Ian Smith opinion is the only one that counts, and he gave a penalty try!

Second, and the bit seems to be going way over your head and the head of the commentators "a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team". So, this is what he is judging it on and the reason he gave and indeed the reason it was clearly a penalty try. The act of foul play, did it prevent what would have been highly likely to have been a try. You can never say for certain any try would have been scored, because that is impossible... unless you have a time machine. So all this bull crap about Hall not dropping the ball because of Thurston is actually irrelevant to the decision because, the foul play happened and it influenced the course of play, even if just by a split second. Has, as been pointed out, had Thurston made a legal, instead of an illegal challenge on Hall then would he, in the opinion of the video ref, been highly likely to score. The only fair answer to that question is yes, given his proximity to the line. So the fact Hall dropped the ball, whether because of him dropping it, knees in the tackle etc is IRRELEVANT to the decision given.

You need to understand what the law actual says, before commenting upon it!

Made me chuckle.


Hall receives the ball and gets smashed in the head while flying down the wing.
Hall loses the ball in the act of scoring.
Hall gets a further smack in the head from Lewis's knees.
Within a split second Hall considers the situation, weighs up his options, and makes the conscious decision to appear dazed.

Now I know Hall is a bit of an intellectual compared to most professional rugby players.
Yes, he can do the Rubik cube in less than a minute and is apparently a very accomplished mathematician, but to suggest that anyone could be that quick-witted under the above circumstances is simply laughable.

Thurston made an illegal tackle which could have been a penalty try
Luke Lewis leads with the knees which is also illegal and could have been a penalty try too (in fact NSW got a penalty try for the same thing in this years SOO)

Are the Aussies & Kiwis that stupid they don't realise BOTH attempts were illegal and could have resulted in the outcome Smith got?

i think if it was an australian winger that wasn't able to ground the ball after being on the wrong end of a swinging arm and a knee to the face, the aussies might have had a different opinion on what constitutes a penalty try.

Had Ryan Hall not nearly been decapitated, he'd have had better control of the ball.

If you don't believe this, try holding the ball in one hand and have someone swing an arm at your head and see if your grip gets worse.

when did they change the penalty try from 8 pts to 6 it used to be a try conversion and then a penalty under the sticks still i am