Except that is not what the rule says. It specifically rules out actions AFTER the try is scored. The issue is what constitutes the act of "touching the ball down".

And he should be penalised for getting a risky tactic so badly wrong.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lqXKnCsaQM Is this any different to what occured on Sunday? Both were in the act of touching down imo.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lqXKnCsaQM Is this any different to what occured on Sunday? Both were in the act of touching down imo.

he wasn't touching the ball down though was he?

he hadn't even reached out to put the ball down at the time of impact.... he was just falling towards the try line... the ball was more than a few feet away from the line.

Why should it be a penalty if he'd scored and been punched but not if he'd been punched and scored? It doesn't make sense. In both circumstances he has scored, and in both circumstances he has been punched. Surely the RFL have designed the laws to award a) a penalty try in cases where a try is denied by foul play and b) a penalty kick in cases where a player is fouled but scores/has scored anyway. As for your first point, we know Tomkins was in the act of scoring not simply because he was crossing the line but because [ihe did in fact go on to[/i score. If a player scores it stands to reason that at some point before that he was in the act of scoring.

It doesn't have to have been scored - it has to be in the process of being scored. For something to be in the process of happening it must, by definition, not have completely happened yet. Scoring is not the same as scored; touching down not the same as touched down. For a player to be scoring means, categorically, that they have not scored yet; if a try is [ubeing[/u scored it has not [ubeen[/u scored; if a ball is [ubeing[/u touched down it has not [ubeen[/u touched down. The rules would explicitly state that a penalty must only be awarded "after" a try if that was the intention.


Apparently it is.

it wasn't being scored though... that's why is WASNT given.

post to the whistle lad.

Now i am confused.

Is there some way of looking at the official rules (link).

Wasn't it? I'd suggest that at the point of contact Tomkins arms are reaching forward. The only reason for that would be to score a try. Hence why I believe Tomkins was fouled in the act of scoring.

just read the wigan board..... that should clear up any doubts you have.

i think raynor is being hung tomorrow outside primark.

i dont think the rules give a flying f*ck what you believe.

I beg to differ.



To reiterate what I previously said and to answer your claim, not only was Tomkins fouled [iat the line[/i, he [uwas[/u reaching out and the ball was grounded 0.24 seconds later. How ridiculous would it be to have a rule that specifically would only award a penalty if Tomkins had been punched 0.24 seconds later at the moment the ball touched the floor, not a millisecond earlier or later. Let's face it, if you were right the RFL would have used the word "touched" rather than "touching".

Of course it was. 0.24 seconds later it had been scored, therefore at the point of reaching forward at the line it was being scored. A try cannot be "being scored" and "have been scored" at the same time. If the RFL meant "been scored" they would surely say so.

so in this seasons world championship game .... what did you think when Morris scored in the corner and tomkins came in and smashed his knees into morris after he had grounded the ball?

bearing in mind he had already got the ball down when the foul was commited?

Now i'm even more confused because on every other board he's getting a knighthood

Maybe if you start a thread on it there'll be some discussion and I might just grace it with my opinion. For now, however, I shall assume you are changing the subject in lieu of an adequate rebuttal. Good night.

there was a thread on it when it happened and you wigan fans cried 'there was nothing wrong with it... he was trying to stop someone scoring a try'

and now a foul has happened against you its a totally different ball game.

at the end of the day its rugby karma... rat boy has been cheating and dishing out cheap shots since the day he walked into SL... now someone has knocked him out by accident and you are all up in arms.

get a grip lad.

What that picture shows is he's about 3-4 feet from the line

the ball could easily have come out of his hands......

i dont know what all the fuss is about.

On what planet is that 3-4 foot? Its about 2 foot high and nearly above the line. Tomkins was reaching out to put the ball down when contact was made. In my view that classifies as an 8 point try.


But the ball didn't come out of his hands. He scored. And was fouled whilst in the act of scoring.

The fuss is about the proper application of the rules or the differing interpretations of the rules by referees. Also it's about the fact Wigan should have had 2 more points in a very close game.

no one cares

look at the size of the players feet, imagine them 3-4 in line all after each other, about 3-4 feet.
Half a body length, which is about right.

Quote ="Horatio Yed"Now i am confused. Is there some way of looking at the official rules (link).'" www.therfl.co.uk/a_guide_to_the_ ... nalty_kick Quote Offence against Try scorer 9. If a player fouls an opponent who is touching down for a try, a penalty kick at goal shall be taken from in front of the goal posts after the attempt to convert the try. After his kick has been taken the ball shall be deemed dead and play shall be restarted from the halfway line. This law applies to the period during which the ball is touched down for a try and not to any subsequent period.'" It is pretty clear that this refers to when the ball is actually being grounded. Not when the ball is a couple of feet off the ground prior to it being touched down. This is also consistent with how rare 8 point tries are. Ganson had a simple choice between awarding the penalty or playing the advantage and awarding the try. I think awarding the try was to Wigan's advantage.

Quote ="Horatio Yed"Now i am confused. Is there some way of looking at the official rules (link).'" www.therfl.co.uk/a_guide_to_the_ ... nalty_kick Quote Offence against Try scorer 9. If a player fouls an opponent who is touching down for a try, a penalty kick at goal shall be taken from in front of the goal posts after the attempt to convert the try. After his kick has been taken the ball shall be deemed dead and play shall be restarted from the halfway line. This law applies to the period during which the ball is touched down for a try and not to any subsequent period.'" It is pretty clear that this refers to when the ball is actually being grounded. Not when the ball is a couple of feet off the ground prior to it being touched down. This is also consistent with how rare 8 point tries are. Ganson had a simple choice between awarding the penalty or playing the advantage and awarding the try. I think awarding the try was to Wigan's advantage.

As I was saying . . .

Mind you an appeal may be worthwhile as the time of sending off makes it effectively a 2 1/2 match ban.

If the law required the ball to have been grounded then it would state "grounded". Ground[uing[/u is, by its very definition, the process leading to ground[ued[/u. A player at the line, reaching out with the ball so that it is 2 feet from the floor and scoring 0.24 seconds later is, by any account, in the process of grounding the ball. The process has begun, there is no denying that.


But you seem to be saying that if the strike had occurred 0.24 seconds later when the ball had touched the ground it would have warranted a penalty kick after the conversion. Does it really stand to reason that the RFL would create a rule by which players guilty of transgressions made during the act of scoring were still punished and players offended during the act of scoring were still recompensed yet it would not apply in a situation where a player is diving over the line to score? The intention of the law can be taken from it's name: Offence against try scorer. It is meant to provide an advantage to the try scoring team when an offence has been committed.

You are talking rubbish. You do not know better than the professional referees concerned. They were right. You are wrong. You can argue that the law [ishould[/i be changed to apply to that situation, but as it stands, it does not.

In any case, using your own logic, "offence against try scorer" simply does not apply. If you speak English and are not mad, then answer me this: At the moment of impact, was Tomkins, de facto, a try scorer? No, he was not. Therefore, Raynor couldn't have committed an offence against a try scorer. It does not say "Offence against try scorer, or someone who will shortly score a try but has not done so yet."

I would be surprised if you have image rights to put up a screen grab but whilst it stays up, your image is redundant to your argument since it is taken well AFTER the contact with the head was made.This is obvious, because the head has moved all the way to Tomkins' left. You should have used a screen grab from the moment of impact, and not some point later.