He was not certain to score, for me he was coming up short. 6 inch up the field it had to be a penalty try but right call for me.

He is ALLOWED to attack the ball with the knowledge that he will concede a penalty and not a penalty try as was the case years ago. That was the rule brought in due the the aforementioned squabble a few years back, as the fact is that defenders almost always put hands on the ball during the act of scoring, because what else are they meant to do in that situation? The ball rarely comes free, however.

Therefore, the emphasis is on the try scorer to ensure he gets it down. If Goulding keeps greater control of the ball, he scores, simple as that.

The rule was brought in IIRC to give defenders a fair shot as if they stopped ball being grounded twisted man up and then attacker just let go what do you give? Ball steals can be debatable enough as it is and otherwise do you just let them ground it? Rule makes sense IMO!

Surely that will ruin the game. Maybe our player did the same because he thought if Maguire can get away with it, well why not? I think it might been TL who did it this week but he actually had the chance to do so last week and it would have prevented a score. You could see he was thinking about it but he didn't actually do it (last week).

IMO taking out players in support off the ball needs to be stamped out before it becomes the norm or it will ruin the spectacle off good support play.

Dave

After one loss ... jeez you're fickle, Maguire has had a great first season in charge.

_________

Re - Goulding being awarded a penalty and not a penalty try.

You probably won't listen (nobody has so far) but here goes'Just five minutes into the second-half Rob Burrow's pass supplied Danny McGuire; he was halted just short, but managed to offload to Matt Diskin, who dived over. Referee Phil Bentham put the square in the air and video judge Richard Silverwood ruled full-back Michael Platt had stolen the ball, with Glenn Morrison also involved in the tackle. A penalty try was the correct decision, though there wasn't a lot else Platt could have done in the circumstances.' [/i Extract taken from the YEP match report.

Phil Clarke (who else) led the calls claiming it has to be legitimate for defenders to try and prevent a try in that circumstance. The RFL seemingly agreed and introduced the new interpretation for the beginning of the following season (200icon_cool.gif and as far as I know it has remained unaltered ever since.

I think this incident involved Sam, but it looked to be a tangle of legs from both players causing them both to fall over. I THINK that is why a penalty wasn't given.

It was Fox and he wasnt taken out he just tripped over his own feet hence why nothing was given.

It was fox, he was pulled back by tompkins and their feet did tangle and bring down fox, it much the same way as mcguire did last week, the only difference was tompkins didnt damage his leg in the process and hang onto fox for as long

I thought the no-penalty-try rule was only in force in the in-goal area, not in the field of play? I may be mis-remembering, but that's my recollection of it. That strip was in the field of play, not the in-goal.

So their feet tangled? It was an accident then..

Or are you accusing Tomkins (no P) of tripping along with everything else he supposedly does?

I'm fairly sure this was one of the small changes they made to the rules last year, can't get a penalty try for ball steal over line, but it is a penalty, is it not a professional foul though, would it not be worthy of 10mins in bin as he knew full well what he was doing or is that slightly harsh?

Totally agree Dave. Its just while the rules are like they are people will take the risk as it probably pays off most times.

One Hull KR player took Richards out off the ball last night too, cant remember who it was though.

How can he be allowed to do something if it results in a penalty though? Surely the penalty is there to discourage them from doing it?