The try wasn’t scored not because of high tackle but because he lost it as the arm made contact with the ball. The arm then slid up & made contact with the head. The ball was lost before the contact with the head. NO TRY
1 Like
You and I watched a different version of events it seems mr walker…
IMO the contact was simultaneous head to ball, the forearm connected with the jaw whilst his hand contacted the ball.
If that was a Panther attempting to score, I would be filthy if that wasn’t called a penalty try.
I watched of Foxtel - perhaps you were on Ch9 
I still consider that he lost the ball from the contact with the ball, not from the contact with the head. Anyway, we have lost 2 games in the past year & in both we conceded a penalty try, so we know what not to do!
So whats the call… I just looked back at the replay. and depending on what angle you look at it it tells a different story. From the side angle he touches the ball fractionally before the upper part of his arm makes contact with his face.
So let’s assume for arguments sake that he did dislodge the ball first, then does the high tackle penalty fit? I thought it had to do with first contact, but is this the case? They seemed to have made this rule to be a vague as possible.
Yer not sure Steve…they usually love black and white rules.
I did watch Foxtel live, but the replay I looked at prior to posting mrwalker was ch9.
On the day, I was skeptical, but came to the conclusion that the foul play “was in the act” of scoring a try, so given the high contact was a penalty, I had no issue with it being a penalty try. Like I said, I would be filthy if that happened to us.
Q. If the rule was black and white, what would be the result of a no try due to losing the ball, but the high shot in the in goal? Would we then lose the player to the bin and they have a set restart on our 10?
Facebook
Twitter
Youtube
Websites