Why no penalty try?

[Stephen18]

I’ve no doubt when he went for it he’s hope he can knock it up in the air and get to it, but he doesn’t and he prevented a clear try so it’s a yellow and a penalty try, the same as when veainu did it except he almost actually caught it after he knocked it up.

[BFG]

He didn't try and catch it though. He got a fingertip to it at full stretch. Mitigation was that it's difficult to see whether it went forward or not. If it did, certain penalty try as it was 3-1 outside. If it didn't go forward, just upwards, there's no issue.

He did try, did he ever stand any chance of catching it, locks take balls out of the air like that at the line out regularly so yes it was a valid attempt in my opinion and the loopy pass certainly invited it, but as you suggest was it actually a knock on anyway, coming back for the original penalty would suggest not!
Do you give credit for the attempt to intercept it or criticise the pass, probably a bit of both on this occasion, just the way it goes sometimes!

Locks are generally stationary in a lateral sense, not running it full tilt out of the line. He had a 99% chance of not catching it considering his forward velocity out of the defensive line!

I thought it was a genuine attempt, not like those cynical slap downs we sometimes see, but I guess only the player knows for sure!
Was it knocked forward, if not then it's no knock on anyway in which case I suppose he has no case to answer!

[Grimlish]

I wasn’t sure Veainu’s effort clearly went forward as such ie towards the oponents’ try Line, only forward relative to where it would otherwise have gone. In which case it would be the same as yesterday’s effort whether it went ‘forward’ or not

[LittleBigG]

Yeah, we deserved to lose the damn game because we were so s**** but the ref had an absolute stinker.

Forward pass for their 3rd(?) try - if their own kicker lining up to take a quick drop goal when under no time pressure and whilst well in front doesn't scream "check with the TMO" I don't know what does.

Blatant deliberate knock down which should have been a PT + yellow as we had a three man overlap... Having looked at the replay he had absolutely no chance and given the number of yellow + PTs that have been given this season, even for much more realistic attempts, it should have been at least looked at!

Shoulder charge... Personally I disagree and thought he swung his shoulder into the tackle but at least they reviewed the damn thing!

These three things were at crucial times of the game and, had the scoreline been different, the game would have been played in a different way.

I know most of us do like to complain at the referee but because of the magnitude of these decisions I believe the result would have been different.

Still, like I say, fair play to Worcester - we were inept and they were pretty clinical in attack; I am in this bizarre situation where I am disappointed because (IMO) we probably would have won the game were it not for the aforementioned points, but not disappointed because we lost to the better team...

[strawclearer]

I can't remember the exact number of 'kickable' penalties we chose to forego in favour of a kick to touch but a number of us 'ancient emissions' in the Crumbie were heard to suggest 'sotto voce' that "Johners would have taken 3 points there!" How many did we lose by....?

[Stephen18]

I can't remember the exact number of 'kickable' penalties we chose to forego in favour of a kick to touch but a number of us 'ancient emissions' in the Crumbie were heard to suggest 'sotto voce' that "Johners would have taken 3 points there!" How many did we lose by....?

That a great hindsight thought, but I would rather see them go for the 7 if they’re confident they can score. No they didn’t but then who know how many of the kicks he’d get if any.

[chewbacca]

I can't remember the exact number of 'kickable' penalties we chose to forego in favour of a kick to touch but a number of us 'ancient emissions' in the Crumbie were heard to suggest 'sotto voce' that "Johners would have taken 3 points there!" How many did we lose by....?

That a great hindsight thought, but I would rather see them go for the 7 if they’re confident they can score. No they didn’t but then who know how many of the kicks he’d get if any.

It may be hindsight but it wasn't percentage rugby in a tight game. We lost by 4 points, 50% of those penalties kicked and we win. I suspect our percentage from the tee is higher than a score from a line out 10m out.

[Tiglon]

I can't remember the exact number of 'kickable' penalties we chose to forego in favour of a kick to touch but a number of us 'ancient emissions' in the Crumbie were heard to suggest 'sotto voce' that "Johners would have taken 3 points there!" How many did we lose by....?

That a great hindsight thought, but I would rather see them go for the 7 if they’re confident they can score. No they didn’t but then who know how many of the kicks he’d get if any.

It may be hindsight but it wasn't percentage rugby in a tight game. We lost by 4 points, 50% of those penalties kicked and we win. I suspect our percentage from the tee is higher than a score from a line out 10m out.

I would rather see them go for the try only if there is good reason for them to be confident, and often teams seem to have a gameplan of going for the corner from penalties, which can only be based on statistics that suggest teams in general have a high % chance of scroing from 5m lineouts - even if they as a team have a recent history of being rubbish at lineouts and driving mauls.

If teams are going to base decisions on statistical probabilities, which they should, then many of them need to do rather more research on their own statistics and make better informed decisions.

[jgriffin]

Statistical probabilities are representative of population data, not individual team capabilities and the situation at the time. I agree, take the 3 points, get the ball back from kick-off (yes, Tigers, that's the other idea you need to work on) and pressure them, often leading to at least another penalty unless you knock on.......I'd always take the 3 if my lineout was dubious.

[Tiglon]

Statistical probabilities are representative of population data, not individual team capabilities and the situation at the time. I agree, take the 3 points, get the ball back from kick-off (yes, Tigers, that's the other idea you need to work on) and pressure them, often leading to at least another penalty unless you knock on.......I'd always take the 3 if my lineout was dubious.

A team should be in a position whereby the population data that they base their statistics on is specific to themselves, not just general to the whole league. Players can be taught how to make use of this along with the situation in the game to make the best decision. If a professional sports club as big as Tigers don't invest money in this kind of thing, then it's a big oversight.

If as a captain you don't know the statistics regarding your team converting attacking lineouts into tries, or your kicker's statistics for place kicks for different areas of the pitch, then you are not making an informed decision.

[Hot_Charlie]

but I would rather see them go for the 7 if they’re confident they can score.

Have you watched Tigers either trying to score from or trying to defend 5m line outs in the past 3 years?! Relatively hopeless half the time.