The penalty try....the legal niceties.

Several of the tweets reported on various sites, some from name players, ask the question whether Hendricks would have scored if a legal tackle had been made. The logic being, if you cant answer that question positively, it's not a penalty try.
This follows the usual logic that applies, that the try has to be certain. So if the Welsh made an illegal tackle, but there were other tacklers in position to stop the try, there was no penalty try.
But Walsh asked the question differently...he asked if a try would have been scored but for the illegal tackle. The answer to that was clearly yes. Nobody else could have prevented it The thrust of this logic is we can't assume a succesful legal action is the alternative to an illegal action. 
If the illegal act wasn't certain to have prevented a try...ie a try may not have been scored in any case....there is no penalty try. But in this case the try was certain but for the illegal act. Hence the penalty try.
At least that's my interpretation of the Walsh decision. That said it was bad luck on Williams. I think we have seen tackles like this not being penalized. Perhaps in this case the leading elbow was a bit of a red flag.
But this is somewhat  reminiscent of the AB win over Ireland. 

 Walsh was perfectly correct with that decision but I can't help but question some of the others which seriously determined the outcome of the game. Nothings changed, Walsh is an incompetent who should go the way of Bryce Lawrence.

plenty of tackles like this go un punished, and mostly in the exact same situation too where the last defender is desperately trying to push out the attacker.


walsh ruled on that situation perfectly IMO, infact he did a great job all round.

IMO hes the 2nd best ref in the world after joubert.

"Walsh was perfectly correct with that decision but I can't help but question some of the others which seriously determined the outcome of the game."

saffa rugby fans at their finest.

if the refs rulings are in favour of a saffa team, it is perfectly correct.

if the refs rulings are against a saffa team, then they are seriously questionable.

given all the losses saffa teams accumulate against their NZ superiors and other minnow teams, its little wonder the ref cops so much pathetic abuse.

Finally got a chance to watch this game & what a great one it was 
Wales played their hearts out & it was a tough loss but what a turn around in performance from last week.
Boks looked flummoxed & not half the team they were but I can't help but think they have some pretty big problems to address. The forwards were being out muscled which is a strange sight to see.
No complaints about the kiwi ref guys he did well. I don't get into discussions about Beeno's mythical stat Ref Assisted Wins (RAW) as that is a fruitless exercise of desperation but Boks fans cannot complain about the ref on this one. If so how does this fit into the international conspiracy theory, lol
Congrats to the Boks for having the maturity to pull this one out of the fire on a day when they were outplayed . Congrats to Wales for turning around the team & almost pulling off an historic win.

And congrats to you JW for congratsing everybody.  

 
Yeah right, Faggot. You keep telling yourself that!

Of course you would try to explain the farce away as though it were justified.

Enjoy all the egg on your face, fool of a man.

Bottom line is if he tackled him properly Hendriks would have been forced into touch, so NO, the penalty try awarded was absurd and robbed the Welsh of a well deserved victory against your elderly folk.

The ref tried to explain to Wynn Jones that if the tackler had not been there at all, a try would have been scored ... problem is, he was there, so how could you suddenly remove him from the field of play?

Yes the player deserved to be carded and a penalty given. That's it.

Le's face it that was a poor decision. The ref looked for an excuse to give the match to the Goats and that's exactly what he did.

None the less, your beloved elderly team of geriatrics were found wanting ... BIG TIME.

We've already started seeing the excuses from that arse of a coach and I can see a lot more coming our way.

Now your poor dears will play against the useless Scots and next week we will all hear just what a wonderful team of players Meyer has put together and how all they need now is to merely find and "play the perfect game" again.

Hilarious stuff!!!!

Gooooo Scotland!!!

 

 FFS ou Clearasil, how many teams do you support? Scotland as well?

In any case, your problem is that you clearly do not understand the laws  of the game.

9.A SCORING POINTS
9.A.1 POINTS VALUES

Penalty Try. If a player would probably have scored a
try but for foul play by an opponent, a penalty try is
awarded between the goal posts.

So, there was nothing absurd about the decision. In fact, had he not awarded the penalty try, he would have fucked up.

"Why did the tackler go in with a shoulder charge", one might ask. Could it be that he did not back himself to pull of a legitimate tackle? Fact is that when you transgress, you have to accept to be sanctioned. Finish and klaar.

Oh, and BTW, why don't you right an essay about the try that was scored from a lost forward ball? Now  there was an absurd decision if you ever saw one.

Funny how the Bok-haters, like yourself, focus on that penalty try and forget about the other, more dubious, decision?

 Actually, I believe the first penalty try awarded to the Boks was a bit over the top but if that's being a "typical SAFFA" then dats just fine ou SourSook.

 "Oh, and BTW, why don't you right an essay about the try that was scored from a lost forward ball? Now  there was an absurd decision if you ever saw one."

 

A valid point with which I wholly agree.

 

 

As for "Clearasil"??  well that's lighhearted for someone with a criminal record.

 
Tell me Doos ... were you one of the fans going into raptures when the 2nd penalty try was awarded?

I saw the whole stadium celebrate as though we had just won the world cup.

Instead of expecting to score 80 pts against them ... without effort ... and then moving on nonchalant, you celebrate a 1pt (dubious I might add) victory, like there's no tomorrow.

Against a poor Welsh side like this?

That doesn't bother you?

Instead of looking at the picture objectively and saying to yourself that this shoddy team and their embarrassing performance, against a side that lost to Japan last year, is just not good enough ... you cheered and celebrated to the point of orgasmic.

Jeez!!! What kind of an arse are you?


 

 Tell me Doos, were you one of the Welsh fans going into raptures when the try was awarded from a ball that was lost forward?

Jeez!!! What kind of an arse are you?

  "Tell me Doos, were you one of the Welsh fans going into raptures when the try was awarded from a ball that was lost forward?

Jeez!!! What kind of an arse are you?"

 

 

 

 

 Hey Clearasil you doos. I though that it might help of I helped you with some more laws about penalty tries.

Law 10 Foul Play
DEFINITIONS
Foul play is anything a player does within the playing enclosure that is against
the letter and spirit of the Laws of the Game. It includes obstruction, unfair play,
repeated infringements, dangerous play and misconduct which is prejudicial to
the Game.


That is as far as the title of  the specific law and the definition of it goes.

Now, I will go ahead and quote you a section of the law and the sanctions. You will  note this very important instruction at the end:

"A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored."

I hope that you have noticed the word "MUST". Not can or should or may be, etc.

10.2 UNFAIR PLAY
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

Note that Williams could actually have been sent off. They were lucky.

Walsh actually had no choice. He had to check whether the tackle was legitimate. If it was, then he had to check whether a try would  have been scored, had the tackle not taken place. If the answers were "no" and "yes", which was the case, and he did not award the penalty try then he, Walsh, would have been ignoring the laws of  the game and that would have been absurd.

Hope it helps. Sorry our Boks beat your team. Better luck next time.