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?

Same rules do not apply to leeds so the watkins incident is basically irrelevant. I mean ablett got away with report for what he did but in that cup game farrell went in the bin for being committed and coley did in another game for tackling burrow (iPhone corrected to brough ha) exactly at the point of releasing the ball. Tbh id say they got both watkins and tomkins decisions wrong.

That's a different rule. This topic is about the "eight point try", the "act of scoring isn't relevant to a penalty try. In that case, the penalty try is awarded because
(a) a try was NOT scored, and
(b) in the opinion of the referee, a try would have been scored but for the foul play.

If that was the ref's opinion, then he has to give the pen try

Nowhere in the law does it state the player has to be the try scorer at the point he is fouled. In fact, given the clause stating that fouls after a try is scored cannot be an 8 point try, it is actually impossible to foul a try scorer and it be classified an 8 point try.

What the law says is "as an opponent is touching the ball down". So it comes down to the definition of what "touching the ball down" means. Now the NRL & ARL obviously take a view similar to that of EGW and myself, that it includes the a period immediately prior to the ball physically touching the ground ie the act of scoring, since in recent times they have given 2 8 point tries where the foul was immediately before the ball was touched down. IIRC 1 was for a foul on Greg Inglis and another was by Thurston in a State of Origin game.

So whilst you may disagree, it's not necessarily "nonsense" to interpret the law in that way.

Right back at you.


That's just another way of saying "I'm right, you're wrong." Since officials are fallible, the fact that an official made a particular decision cannot be taken as proof that such a decision was correct. I could just as easily say "The officials clearly did not know it, since they applied it incorrectly." That would be a circular argument.


Too late, it would seem.


And of course this is the very point at which our opinion differs. For me, a period during which something happens must be a period longer than the length of the thing happening within it, otherwise it would be a moment or an instant, and if that was the case I cannot fathom why the RFL didn't choose to explicitly state it as such. Thus, for something to happen within a period, the period must be longer than the thing which is happening [iwithin [/iit, and therefore the try scoring act during which the ball is touched down must be longer than the moment the ball is touched down. Just as 12:32 occurs during the period 12:00—13:00, likewise, a try (ball touched down) occurs [iduring[/i the try scoring act. If it were otherwise the RFL would have used the term "at the moment of" as opposed to "during the period of".

The rules say it's a penalty try if a foul is committed against a player who is 'touching down' for a try. In my book, even though the ball was not actually in contact with the ground, Tomkins was in the act of 'touching down' for a try.

Given the decision of Ganson, who did not ask for a possible 8 pointer to be considered, and the video ref who saw the incident but chose not to award it, it must be taken literally that 'touching down' is only deemed to be occuring when hand, ball and ground in goal are simultaneously in contact.

I'll go with that. It is a shame that, if it is the intent, the Laws do not refer to the moment the ball is touched down. They could have used a phrase like "an opponent who is touching down for a try" to make it clear it only refers to when the ball is being touched down. As it would be obvious that a player isn't touching down for a try before the ball is touched down or indeed after the ball has been touched down.

It could be that they intended to mean the moment the ball is touched down and have unwittingly worded it ambiguously, but I would find it very odd that they would create a rule to award a penalty if an offence is committed against a try scorer and then, as an after thought, say "but we must make sure we don't award a penalty if the same offence is committed a split second before the ball touches the grass." I can't think of any benefit to the game of doing that, tbh, and it would almost be like a lottery for both the offender and non-offender in terms of whether they conceded/received an additional two points based on infinitesimally small timeframes.

If the offence happens before the ball is touched down then the non offending team has been given an advantage. If the offence happens when the player is touching down for the try then there is no advantage and so a penalty is awarded after the conversion attempt. This case is clearly the former.

Before he scores a try, he isn't a try scorer. It's really that simple.

You're confusing 2 different scenarios. Read that again and maybe you will see it is a non sequitur. Foul someone as he is touching the ball down and it is an eight pointer. But it's not possible to foul someone AFTER he scores the try and it to become an eight pointer.


I would agree, but when hit, Tomkins was not touching the ball down. You keep referring to the "act of scoring" but that isn't in the rule so is irrelevant.


You are comparing cases that are different. First, I would not be surprised to see a ref give an 8 pointer even if later slo-mos showed that the ball was not quite down at that instant, as the ref has to judge in real time, with no replays, and so it's understandable. This was not such a case.


In the case of Raynor's foul on Tomkins, I have t say it is nonsense as, with respect, I think it is, and so I can't put it any other way. It would be different if I thought the opposite could reasonably be argued, but I don't.

If you wanted to propose that the law was [ichanged[/i to include a defined "act of scoring", widely enough interpreted to include a case like Tomkins, that's different. I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but think you would then just run into precisely the same arguments as when the "act of try scoring" begins, and people trying to push that envelope. For example, Tomkins chose to sort of dive forward. What would you say if he hadn't? For example, many players use a technique of sliding down feet first, and touch the ball down gripped under one arm, on their side. This way they don't risk dropping the ball. What if that was Tomkins' MO, and so for that reason he hadn't dived, but the same thing happened? Would you say it is not an eight pointer, because his style of scoring tries is different from the diving style of scoring tries?

I hope (to avoid doubt) that the above comes across as reasoned argument and not as some seem to think, some form of rant. I think it is a very good discussion and the questions of what the law is and more to the point what we would all like it to be. And perhaps why it is as it is.

But the point which I don't think anyone has answered (because they can't) is as follows:
[size=150=#FF0000What if Tomkins had dropped the ball after being fouled?[/size
It is a minor miracle that he didn't, if he was unconscious, but certainly there was plenty of scope for him to do so.
I think you would have to agree that if he had dropped it, then the ref could not convert the "try" into an eight point try - for the very simple reason that there had BEEN no try scored to be upgraded. It would certainly be a penalty try.
And therein lies your answer. Tomkins was not touching the ball down, because he could easily have dropped it, lost it or had it knocked out, so the very real possibility of him never becoming "a try scorer" existed at the time of the foul. Indeed as I said I think it miraculous that a try was scored.
It is no use saying "But he didn't", because that is just missing the point, avoiding the issue, and closing your mind to the real issue. You would be arguing that after Raynor fouls him, the ref has to wait and see whether he is fouled badly enough to prevent the try, if yes, it's 6 points, if no, it's 8. That, I suggest, cannot be right.

You are saying that Tomkins was "a try scorer" at the moment he was fouled, but I am saying that IS nonsense, because the unlikely fact that he managed somehow to score does not retrospectively operate to make him a try scorer at the moment of the foul.

some of you make me laugh on here calling raynor a thug yea ok it wasnt the best thing i have ever seen but tomkins deserves it sometimes and wigan used to employ some of the biggest thugs in rugby league at one time

You see I think he was touching the ball down, as I believe the phrase "touching the ball down" includes the act of doing so not just the immediate instant the tip of the ball touches the ground.

Both of the Australian cases I gave were given after slow mo replay by the video refs. In both cases the ball was clearly not touching the ground at the point the foul was committed. I'm fairly sure a popular video sharing site will have them on somewhere. 1 was by Thurston in SOO 2009 game 3 and the other was by Jamie Soward on Greg Inglis this season in the NRL.

If Tomkins had dropped the ball it should have been given as a penalty try.

I am not suggesting the ref has to wait & see if Tomkins scored after the foul because it happens so quickly so no advantage is available to be given to Tomkins. If he'd been further out or the time between the foul and the try had been long enough for advantage to be given then fair enough and a simple penalty would suffice. The law rules out fouls after a try being scored but not fouls immediately prior to it. Despite the title of the rule, the actual rule itself doesn't mention the having to be a try scorer, it describes them as the opponent. Therefore I am not describing as a try scorer at the moment he is fouled, and the rule doesnot require him to be.

As I said it would be impossible for referees or even video refs to adjudicate on this accurately if the narrower definition of touching the ball down is used. Since cameras only operate at a certain amount of frames per second and so at what point do we decide the ball is grounded? The second? The millisecond? More accurate than that? How much of a range is acceptable between the ball touching the ground and the offence being committed?