Let's put it this was did not use his arms, shoulders or hands

A penalty try is awarded for a foul which in the opinion of the official involved prevented a try being scored which if the foul hadn't happened would have been scored. The fact that the try was then awarded nehates the effect of the foul and so it is as if the foul hadn't happened. Hence no red card!!

It wasn't a penalty try.

Luke Lewis knocked the ball out not Thurston.

The ball was already falling before Lewis made contact however he did go in with the knees which is also illegal.

I won't pretend to understand the rules however my take on it was - the illegal tackle slowed Halls momentum. Had it not taken place one can make the case that the 2nd tackler would not have got close to him prior to grounding the ball. On those grounds I think the refs opinion that a try would have been scored but for the foul play is legitimate.

As for the foul play being meritous of a sending off. Remove the incident from the penalty try issue and I believe many similar incidents result in sending offs. Personally I think it was worthy of a sending off, deliberate or accidental it was illegal and very dangerous.

Watch it at full speed - not slow motion. Of course it was a penalty try.

regardless of the lack of intention in luke lewis' knees, is it not clear that going in with the knees is wreckless play, which is quite often penalised?

Hall's previous 3 tries in this series, all much harder finishes than last night's would suggest that without the headshot the try would have been pretty well nailed on.
I also think Thurston knew this. I don't believe a player of his intelligence, sharpness and ability would commit that type of tackle unless he was pretty certain there was no other way to stop Hall.

I've read some e on these forums but this takes the biscuit!!

Thurston made no attempt to tackle Hall and instead committed a blatant foul in an attempt to prevent the try; had Hall not been fouled, there is no doubt he would have put the ball down cleanly.

Lewis compounded it by sliding in with his knees - again, no attempt at a legal tackle, just a foul to prevent the try.

Not sure how you sort all that out, but Thurston should have walked - the fact that he did the same thing to Tomkins later in the game was just sticking two fingers up at the gutless ruling body that allows the Aussies to pick their own ref.

It was a clear-cut penalty try.

Thurston should have been sin-binned.

We still would have lost.

So you are happy to see deliberate attacks to the head in RL ?

It wasn't a penalty try. The Aussie media are spewing about it too.

Good job the video ref isn't an idiot as well. I must have missed the directive that the opinions of biased Australian commentators mean anything more than jack sh*t.



Clear penalty try and at least 10 minutes for Thurston. Williams and Thurston throw 2 blatant head shots and get nothing. Weak officiating in the face of the usual ocker bitching about referees.

Who gives a f*k what Australian journalists think?

(see Cronus's post above)

It makes me laugh when people insist it must be a "certain" try for the referee to give the decision when there's no such word in the relevant section of the laws.

The Sky commentators are as bad as anyone for this.

Maybe it's time allow biting and eye gouging in RL ?

...so a penalty try is only valid if the Australian media say it is? I thought it was the match officials who made such rulings, not the members of the press!

Had hall not been slowed down by getting his head taken off and then his head smashed into the thigh of lewis it would have been a run of the mill try for hall!

Spot on. More posters need to read this.

Or alternatively, read the actual laws of the game.

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?