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.

Ok, you need to calm down a bit. Take a deep breath and try not to get so upset as we're only having a discussion.

First of all, professional referees make mistakes just like anyone else, so unless you are suggesting that they are always 100% correct and no discussion should ever take place about refereeing decisions then your first comment is rather silly. And my argument isn't that the law should be changed; quite the opposite, those who claim that the law should only apply once the ball is grounded should argue that the law should be changed to "grounded". I am going off the law as it stands in its current form. If you recall, the commentators and pundits were also bemused by the non-implementation of the law in this particular try scoring situation.

Second, Tomkins was the try scorer and an offence was committed against him. This is beyond contention. And you're actually wrong, it does state that the law applies to a try scorer or someone who will shortly score a try but has not done so yet. It does so by specifically (and surely, we can assume, purposefully) using the word "GROUNDING" instead of "GROUNDED".

Third, you are desperately splitting hairs regarding the moment of impact. I'm sure you could make a screen grab 1 or 2 frames either side of the one I took, which would make the impact occur between 0.32 and 0.16 seconds before the ball is grounded, as opposed to the 0.24 seconds I quoted. The distinction makes no difference to the spirit of the law which is intended to address offences against try scorers as opposed to, you know, offences committed during ordinary play when a try is not scored.

That is precisely what I, and the laws of the game, are saying.



It does stand to reason. A major problem with your suggestion that they award a penalty after a try for an offence that occurred before the grounding is how far back do you go?

When the offence occurs before the grounding (as in this case) the try scoring team has already been given an advantage by the ref allowing play to continue and awarding the try. You can have the penalty or the try, not both. It is only in the rare instance of the offence being committed when the ball is actually being grounded that no advantage has been given and so the 8 point try addresses that.

So easily in fact that, despite being completely out cold at the point of the picture, he still managed to have a good enough grip on it to ground it?


Clearly you do, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing about it.

I don't think it's pretty clear at all, I think it needs rewriting. They say both touching and touched, which are two different tenses.

The 8 point try rule cannot apply after the ball is grounded, the rules are at least clear on that aspect. So I think it's reasonable to suggest that the term "try scorer" applies to Tomkins whilst he is touching the ball down. As EGW has pointed out it's a split second between the offence and the try being scored. I don't think it's beyond the bounds of reason to suggest that literally a split second before the try is scored a player reaching out to put the ball down could be construed as in the act of scoring.

I'll say it again. There can be no 8 point try for any offence that happens after the ball touches the ground. So it's not unreasonable to suggest the law is meant to apply to the act of scoring.

Also that ball in he picture is no way 4 foot away from the line, it's almost directly above the line. It's also not 4 foot in the air, unless Steve Ganson is now 8 foot tall.

It's also interesting to note that the NRL use the same rule, worded in exactly the same way and there have been at least 2 relatively recent 8 point tries given for offences that happened immediately prior to the ball being touched down.

The rules should protect the players and uphold fair play and sportsmanship. It cannot be right that a defending team can foul a player and get away without giving away a penalty at any point during the game. I believe that all the other offences mentioned on this thread should also have seen penalty kicks awarded after the conversion. I see no reason why retrospective penalties cannot be given to uphold player protection and the spirit of the game. When different people have different spins on the same rules, the rules need to be clarified. Whatever the rules say they should not allow foul play/dangerous play (whether intentional or not) to be punished more harshly at some points during a game than others.

A poor effort. Whilst I'm not in the slightest upset (I said on Sunday what the correct offence was, and predicted the charge, conviction and sentence so if anything I would be rather smug

) you are making the mistake of getting upset when your argument is sytematically dismantled. Which it was. It's ironic, bearing in mind your whinge, that the very fact of me discussing has upset you so. I didn't realise you were such a tender flower.


Better still. You ignore my point, and instead, you trump up a suggestion which I didn't make, and then criticise it! You need to try harder.


Disingenuous. You have (presumably) read the law, which (to recap) states that it applies only during "the period during which the ball is touched down for a try". And you are trying to argue it applies to the Tomkins incident, because your arbitrary view is that a time (to use your stat) 0.24 seconds [ibefore[/i the ball was touched down is, nevertheless, near enough. Right?

You cannot sensibly argue this. We all know -you know - that after the contact was made, Tomkins continued on his way, and subsequently, grounded the ball. There was a gap. It does [inot[/i say "the period during which the ball is touched down for a try, [ior earlier than that in the discretion of the referee[/i". It starts when the ball touches the ground, and finishes when the touchdown is complete. I don't know why you can't accept this, but he simply was not touching down. He had started to dive, preparatory to touching down.

Let me throw another spanner in your works. What if when Raynor hit him, Tomkins had lost the ball? You would agree, I trust, that in those circumstances, there would never have existed a period "when the ball is touched down for a try", and Tomkins would never have been a "try scorer". (The correct decision then would have been a penalty try, or a penalty if the ref was not sure he would have scored). It is this circumstance which is fatal to your argument, as there would have been no try, and no try scorer.

With respect Ferocious, there had been a civil tone throughout until you came and said he was talking nonsense. You might disagree with his point of view but I fail to see how it's nonsense.

The rule does not state it ONLY applies to "the period during which the ball is touched down for a try" because earlier in the rule it states "If a player fouls an opponent who is touching down for a try" which can quite easily be construed to include the act of scoring a try.

Also, the part you quoted is only part of a longer sentence.
"This law applies to the period during which the ball is touched down for a try and not to any subsequent period."
Which obviously means that any action after the try is scored is not classified as an 8 point try.

Additionally if you take a narrow definition of scoring a try and only include the point at which the ball touches the ground as scoring a try (and do exclude the Raynor incident as an 8 point try) then there is not a start and end to the scoring of the try because there is no try scorer until the instant the ball touches the ground, therefore there is no way to "complete" scoring a try, it's either a try or not there is no try scoring movement. In which case there is no opportunity for a penalty try (had Tomkins dropped it) either, because there is no certainty the try would be scored.

I don't think it unreasonable to suggest that, because of the clause affirming there is no 8 point try after the ball has touched the ground and the infinitesimal time period during which a try is scored, the rule was supposed to include the act of scoring, otherwise there would never ever be a situation where a ref could accurately say that the player was fouled at the very moment the ball touched the ground.

Also as I said previously, it's interesting that the exact same wording is used in the NRL and they have awarded 8 point tries for offences committed immediately prior to the try being scored.

:3pkqxgb1
The phrase I used was "talking rubbish". I didn't think this was the height of abuse, or uncivil, just a way of expressing my opinion that he was, well, talking rubbish. You don't have to agree, and it is obviously all our respective opinions, but if we each have to say "in my opinion" before each phrase we write, or point we make, the threads will start to look ridiculous. I don't dispute his or anyone's right to an opinion, but just think that one is rubbish. However, as you think it is uncivil, I withdraw it, and substitute "saying things which make no sense at all" for "talking rubbish". OK?

:3pkqxgb1
Nope. It doesn't need construing. "Is touching down" is plain English. It doesn't include "would very soon be touching down". "The period during which the ball is touched down" equally cannot be construed to mean "or earlier".

:3pkqxgb1
Spot on. So why, logically, if it doesn't include even a millisecond AFTER the try has been scored, do you think it nevertheless must be taken to include a period BEFORE a try is scored? If you think about this, I am sure you will concede the point.

:3pkqxgb1
You see, I don't think there is a narrow or a wide definition of "scoring a try". Holding the ball in your hand/s and diving through the air is not, never was, nor ever will be "scoring a try". The points are not awarded mid-air.

:3pkqxgb1
I do think it is unreasonable, because the law does not say that.

was within the wording. Nobody has yet come up with an example from anywhere in the world where a VR (as opposed to a ref, making a decision 'live') has formed this considered view. I doubt there is a precedent, but the Aussies do as they please with the rules anyway.

I concede that it is contentious (as I earlier said), but it presents no more of a problem than the accuracy that would be required in awarding or denying a penalty based on the foul occurring at the very moment the ball touches the floor with a margin of error of approximately 0.24 seconds. Nor does it seem any more problematic than determining if a defender is "committed to the tackle", for example.

Your continued reference to a timeframe of 0.24 seconds is not helpful. The fact is (and I can say "fact" as the incident is recorded on video), that at the moment Tomkins started the act of touching the ball down, i.e. the ball first touched the grass, it was maybe 4 ft. past the try line, at which time, Raynor was on his arrse, not even touching Tomkins, and still in the field of play.

As video grabs seem OK on this thread, here's what I'm talking about.



This is Tomkins in the act of touching down, and he is not being fouled.

I was referring to remarks such as these:

"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 should 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..."

It all comes across as rather hysterical, don't you think? I'm surprised you didn't type it all in caps, such was its tone. I'm sure you're quite capable of discussing this in a more grown up manner, and I welcome such discussion as I'm quite enjoying it.


And yet you did say: "You are talking rubbish. You do not know better than the professional referees concerned. They were right. You are wrong" which appeared to imply that they were right by virtue of being professional referees and that I was wrong by virtue of the opposite. If you did not mean that then fair enough, my point was merely to show that the position you appeared to imply you hold was a silly one.


But he [ididn't [/ilose the ball, he [idid [/iscore, and [iwas [/ithe try scorer who [iwas[/i, as it happens, fouled.


Because "touching down" is not the same as "having touched down"; nor is "the period during which the ball is touched down" the same as "the moment the ball is touched down". 11:30―12:30 was the period during which I [uate[/u my lunch, with the period immediately preceding my having [ueaten[/u my lunch being the period during which I was [ueating[/u my lunch. You can apply this to many things, including the scoring of a try/the touching down of a ball. That, my friend, is plain English, as you like to say.

I just think you want to extend the rule, or interpret it to have a meaning that it just does not have.

That's how the law is written and the officials clearly knew it, as they correctly applied it.

And to save the argument becoming circular, for the last time, I will state that at the time he was fouled, Tomkins was 100% not a try scorer. If as the rule says, he is fouled in the period during which he was touching the ball down, you'd be right but that period only began at more or less the moment captured in my video grab.

That's a good question.

Given the penalty try awarded to Kallum Watkins after consultation between Ganson and the video referee in the season opener at Cardiff, it appears the officials don't know the rules. Watkins didn't even have the ball in his hands and was not even in goal, yet he was awarded a penalty try.

If the Watkins was deemed to be in the act of scoring without being in possession, surely Tomkins must have been in the act of scoring?