Why weren't we awarded an eight point try last night when Powell was fouled in the act of scoring?

We were awarded one last season so unless the rules have changed they are a thing:

[urlhttps://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/lee-radford-has-no-issues-with-wigans-eight-point-try/[/url

My interpretation is that he had to actually ground it for an 8pt try. Other than that it’s a usual try penalty in front of the sticks

An eight point try can only be given if the player is fouled but has to ground the ball. Powell didn't, a penalty try was the correct decision.

A try is only worth 4 points.
He was awarded a try...that was the penalty, plus a conversion under the sticks...so technically 6 points.

What we call an 8 point try...is actually only a 2 point penalty kick awarded after the try is already scored and a conversion kicked.

I thought the penalty try was more contentious than the red card. For me I don't know how you can say conclusively that Powell would have scored.

You mean you don't see how he could have fallen over the line unopposed if he hadn't have had his head taken off? Really?

You can only get an 8 point try if you actually score the try.

So hypothetically if Powell had held onto the ball whilst being decapitated and he actually grounded the ball he would have scored the try, we would have got a shot at goal as a normal conversion (which we may or may not have kicked), then we would have got the 2 point chance under the sticks for the penalty.

In effect Powell didn't score, so the benefit is that we are getting the try (4 points) and the conversion as normal.

OK thanks. That then makes me wonder why the foul that led to the yellow card was also not awarded a try then.

I’m certain French would’ve got there but I suppose there’s doubt because he may have got a funny bounce and not grounded it. I thought both calls were spot on really, which is funny because they were about the only two calls that were right all night (then again maybe it’s because they were taken out of Kendall’s hands).

Further away from the line, the ball wasn’t in his hands and defender in the vicinity. They got that call and the penalty try spot on in my view.

But if Hill hadn't taken his head off he still would have made the tackle, and whilst it's likely he would still have got the ball down, we've all seen people stopped from there. Yeah of course without contact you can't argue, but Hill would have always been making some sort of tackle on Powell. Does the VR not consider that or is it as if Hill wasn't there?

On the night I thought no penalty try as Jason Clarke (I think) was coming across to cover, but watching back home I'm.convinced he would.
But I do think there was slightly more doubt over the 2nd one than the first so I'm ok with both decisions.

The rest of the officiating not so sure.
1st 20 mins he took us 12/13/14 mtrs back on every PTB.
That created a lot of the space that Clarke exploited.
The Zak hardaker knock on that was a certain ball steal ended up costing us 6points (awful tackle from Burgess not withstanding).

Half time I commented that he pinned us for 4/5 offside and lying on decisions and in reverse there were 4/5 we didn't get that were nailed on.

I can't believe I'm going to say this but Saddened has made a few points on the Wire board that I agree with.
Wire Players moving off the mark to PTB then looking for penalties as markets werent square and he made another point which I cant remember and I csnt find the post to remind me.

I get what your saying, but the VR cant make a decision based on what a player would have done if he hadnt made that particular attempt. He has to almost say of he didn't make that attempt and almost imagine he wasnt there.

The difference with the 2nd one for me is that there was a covering player so penalty for the obstruction was fine as there was a doubt because the other player "may" have covered and stopped him from scoring

Hill wasn't able to make the tackle as he was already behind him, hence the high shot. If you're going to argue that if Hill had been better he would have made the tackle then you're bringing in unquantifiable variables. You can only work with what actually happened otherwise you may as well do away with penalties altogether as you could argue that for every penalty ever given. Take Hill's foul play out of the equation and Powell scores. There really is no need to complicate it beyond that. As for 'contentious', I doubt I've ever seen a less contentious decision.

Many of us Wire's say Powell milked it to get Hill sent off.

The scene we saw you'd have thought the Air Ambulance was gonna have to make a pitch landing....

The official media line wasn't remotely close to the pitch show, 'Powell is sat up under club medic treatment'.!!

Of course he milked it, why score a definite try when you can fake an injury to get a man sent off?

And yet he failed the HIA.

The air ambulance was there for Blake Austin for the many life threatening injuries he received throughout the night.
At one point I thought he was going to go off with laryngitis due to the amount of whining he was doing.

thats because youre a set of s....

Eloquently put

Milked a concussion. Hahahaha. Come on, get a grip.

Not so bright are you...?
Everybody knows the collective noun is a clutch.

Rubber dickie never fails to amuse.

I try.