Right, so there's one thing that the defender can do. Along with jumping for the ball (if he's in reach of the attacker, he will probably have a chance of getting to, or at least challenging for, the ball). Both legal methods of doing something rather than the illegal approach that was taken.



I don't see why there has to be a rule in place to allow the defender to do something in this situation. If it's a good enough kick/catch/jump, the attacking side has earned the right to score. If the defending player is in such a poor position that he can't make a legal play to prevent the score, that's his problem. Just as it would be his problem if the attacker stepped him, leaving him off balance and with no other way of stopping the ball-carrier other than by making a high-tackle.

I agree, but it's the possibilities that are considered.







The problem I have with this is that nobody has demonstrated where in the laws it actually says the offending player must be removed from consideration in alternative scenarios had the illegal act itself not taken place. Everyone seems to agree that the consideration is about the probability of a try being scored had the illegal act not happened. So I'm possibly being pedantic here, but I draw a distinction between the player and the act itself, and the laws don't appear to rule against my distinction.



I've seen penalty tries given where the offender was unlikely to stop a try in any other way than committing a foul, but I'm not convinced this case fits that category, because I think if Fox hadn't have fouled, if he'd have executed one or two seconds later he may still have done something to stop the try which would not have been illegal.







But where does it say that Fox is ruled out of possible scenarios had he not committed the foul?