I guess this is the main point of interest for me...
Why is commiting an illegal act that STOPS a player from scoring a crucial try more acceptable in terms of 'affecting the outcome of a game' than actual calling a penalty try?
If the team trying to score would've won with that try, but were robbed of a win by an illegal act then NOT calling it a penalty try is just as massive for that team as it would be to call the penalty try.
I have never understood why calling one is considered more of a 'big call' than not calling one.
Essentially meaning that if you are leading a game then the refs aren't going to cost you that lead... sounds biased towards the leading team.
[DOUBLEPOST=1375143939][/DOUBLEPOST]
being offside on the try line in itself won't stop a player scoring.
They would have to be involved in an incident that directly stops the ball being placed down for a try.
Being offside would be a step or two back down the chain of events.
Absolutely. I feel referees are loathe to call a try when it would directly CHANGE the apparent existing outcome of the game. This is not good, but it explains their tight-arse use of penalty and 8-point tries. So yes, leading teams get an advantage.
Similar to the way people (including commentators!) bitch and moan when a penalty kick is the winning play, particularly if it wasn't a blatant and/or serious incident.
I mean, when was the last time you saw a late in the game, locked-up scoreline changed because of a penalty kick caused by an offside defensive player? People hate seeing this kind of stuff, and referees hate awarding it.
EDIT: It sucks when it goes against us, and we count ourselves lucky when it goes in our favour. Overall, I am ok with how things are. I prefer to see scoring (even moreso, winning) plays created through rugby league skill and power, not through referee decisions.
The only time I am ok with a game-changing points-play being awarded (as a neutral) is for horrendously obvious illegal acts.
But coming right back to the beginning: My personal opinion on this incident is it was not serious enough to be a penalty try, and thus should not have been awarded a penalty.
The video referee and on-field referees had to choose whether it was a serious enough illegal play to warrant a penalty try, or whether to ignore it entirely. They chose a hypocritical pathway, which leads to this debate.