It was the hooker. What are you talking about?
Right call. If Higgenbotham is given benefit of the doubt, Phipps is so close behind Habana that without being impeding, he would have the try.
Why should he be given the benefit of being allowed to knock the ball?
Your talking about the ruck where all the Rebel player was lying on the ground and BEKKER simply walked over?I'm not talking about the penalty try...
I'm talking about the dumb ruck infringement Habana gave away to put them out of the match...
He's a serial offender when it comes to dumb penalties...
And then he goes and throws a quick lineout to the Rebels... geez...
If you have a tv and latest technology that can see the hair up a props nose grow then there is no excuseVision is inconclusive, assume no infringement/score has occurred.
If you have a tv and latest technology that can see the hair up a props nose grow then there is no excuse
Penalty try.
Absolute rubbish.
No way that was conclusive.
That's a home town decision if EVER I've seen one.
A penalty try occurred when there is no doubt a try would of been scored. Habana could of fit there there for a penalty try should not be awarded. If it was only Phipps and the man pulling him back then it is fair enough.I would like to have seen the other angle to see if Higgers knocked it or he dropped it backwards.
But if it wasn't a knock on then it deserved a penalty try. Such blatant foul play in front of the posts in a two horse race should favour the non cheating team.
A penalty try occurred when there is no doubt a try would of been scored. Habana could of fit there there for a penalty try should not be awarded. If it was only Phipps and the man pulling him back then it is fair enough.