As a one eyed biased rovers fan I obviously dont think any were penalty tries. As a long standing fan of the game though there are a couple of things that bother me. What do people expect Fox to do? just stand there watch him catch it let him score, the Galea/Brown it is two men heading for the same point in space should galea just let him walk over. We watch a hard contact sport, it seems that there is a growing movement to take out the contact, Having played this game over 40 years ago & being subject to spear tackles & head shots it is a lot better now but to penalise a player who hits the ball carrying arm & slips up into the face is a farce. Putting a player in a dangerous position is also a farce especialy when they have controlled his fall to prevent hurting the player.Common sense has gone out of the game.What was needed was the game to come down hard on the type of player who went out to deliberatly hurt others but the over protection of the kicker has gone to far, we used to protect against attacking the standing leg which worked OK but if a kicker wants plenty of time to kick stand further back. I suspect that half of the rules now are to prevent clubs & the RFL from facing compensation claims but that is another topic for discussion.

There were other options.
Jump and compete for the ball.
Tackle him once he landed.


I remember a few years ago in a test match when Robbie Paul tackled Keith Senior in the air as Senior caught a kick in the Kiwis in-goal area. It wasn't given as a penalty try, but everyone apart from the ref seemed to think it should have been.

Give the man a coconut !!

ok,my take on this as a completely unbiased giants fan who has not had the benefit of watching the playback.

lolesi offside? on first viewing from my position on the halfway line,he looked offside,however the evidence or lack of it proved inconclusive so play on.

galea/brown, again on first viewing it looked like galea tackled brown without the ball, on watching the big screen at the ground,again probably benefit of the doubt, BUT how many times have we seen tries disallowed because a player from the attacking side has deemed to have interfered with a defender? and had it been anywhere else on the field a penalty would probably have been given?

fox/hodgson, for me it was a penalty try,im almost certain hodgson would have grounded the ball had he not been tackled illegally,but i think the penalty was the right decision in the end.

all in all though some you win,some you lose, had those decisions been the other way round i probably wouldn't have been happy, so for me its a point gained because i thought rovers were just about the better side, a point deserved for both teams imo and a cracking end to a cracking game

On the dead ball line btw.

The Kevin Brown effort-no try

David Hodgson effort -no try but a penalty,both right decisions for me.

Brown got there before the Hull KR player. The Hull KR player is not entitled to tackle Brown until he collects the ball. I know why the Hull KR player went for broke, but it was against the rules, unfortunately Silverwood thought differently. Hodgson should have had a penalty try, that was the most blatant professional you are likely to see.

Would be interested to hear from Silverwood why he made the decisions he made.

blah blah blah deal with it its a draw all though we was the better team but a point is better than nothing so stop moaning

Perfectly formed scrum I see? No need to reset that then

I think having golden point ET is a fantastic idea and you should embrace it with open arms.

It's the future of Superleague.


I reckon it will be introduced by 2012 and if it isn't then my name isn't Barrington Balgowlah Barangaroo Berowra Bewdy Bonza McKenzie.

Actually that isn't my name... but you get the picture.

I remember that incident very clearly. I think it was the first season the ruling came in in the UK, though I'm far from sure just when it came in the international rules.

Nope. You're thinking of the so-called eight-point try. i.e a penalty awarded in front of the sticks, to be taken after the conversion attempt.

That may be awarded only when a player is touching down & not afterwards.

Why do you think 'certain' should come into it? The test is: if in the referee's opinion a try would have been scored but for the infringement. Certainly is nice but not necessary.

The probable reason so few penalty tries are awarded in ESL (and NRL) is that the refs are told by their controllers NOT to award them unless certain. In other words, told to ignore the laws of the game.