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?

Pray tell me why Sam Tomkins deserves being knocked out cold?

In practical terms it might, but the reason Tomkins was not, was as I keep saying, because there was plenty of opportunity of him still losing the ball. And if he did, then he never would be a try scorer. The problem with your version means an eight point try could still be given even if Tomkins dropped teh ball, if the ref nevertheless agreed with you he had been touching the ball down. Can you see why that doesn't work?


Precisely. So you ARE saying the ref has to wait and see what happens after the foul, and that cannot be right.


But you are doing exactly that. Or else if the ref could, as you say, give a penalty try, how could he do that if he didn't wait to see him drop the ball? Clairvoyance?



The clue is in the heading: Offence against TRY SCORER. By definition, Tomkins when fouled was not a try scorer, whichever way you want to argue it.


It does, though.


Technically, none. I can understand why you might want there to be, but it would be unworkable.

Erm, if a try is not scored it cannot possibly qualify as an "offence against a try scorer". This "what if he dropped the ball" red herring is becoming a tedious distraction now.


Yet Tomkins [idid[/i score a try and a foul [iwas [/icommitted against him. You're simply making an interpretation which fits your existing opinion of what the rule intends.

In my opinion, your misinterpretation of this rule comes from a misunderstanding of the language used in the laws.

Q: What do the laws say about the timeframe at which or during which this law comes into effect? Does it mention moments?
A: No, the laws mention a [uperiod of time[/u which ends when the ball is touched down and during which "touching down" occurs. - [i"[uin the period during which the ball is touched down for a try[/u and not to any subsequent period"[/i

Q: Do the laws exclude the period before the ball is touched down from "the period during which the ball is touched down"?
A: No, the laws only state that the period after the ball is touched down is excluded, but do not mention the period before. - [i"in the period during which the ball is touched down for a try and [unot to any subsequent period[/u"[/i

The logical conclusion is that this law is in effect for a period which includes [uup to[/u the moment the ball is touched down. Quite simply, if the laws intended for the period leading up to the moment the ball is touched down to be excluded along with the period after the ball is touched down then they would have clearly and explicitly stated that it did not include "any subsequent or antecedent period." They did not, so it does not. And if the laws intended for the period to begin at the moment of touching down they would not be so careless as to state "the [uperiod during which[/u touching down occurs" but would quite simply state "when touching down occurs". Again, they don't, so it doesn't.

You are simply arguing from a point of view that is at odds with what is actually written in the laws, so no matter how much you may wish they referred to specific moments that begin and end when ball and grass meet, it is not the case. The laws say period where you say moment; the laws exclude subsequent periods where you exclude antecedent periods. You are simply wrong for these reasons.

For me, this sums it up perfectly – the law states that if a player fouls an opponent ‘who is touching down’ then a penalty shall be awarded after the conversion. Now, in the Tomkins incident, he had started diving to place the ball down – why would he be diving if he was not in the process of touching down. If it was a penalty (as awarded) then it should have been an 8 pointer

He was diving because in order to touch the ball down he first has to get it to the ground. Diving first, then touching down, then having touched down. The law states (twice) it only applies to a player who is touching down. This happened after the dive and the foul.



No penalty was awarded. Ganson allowed the advantage as Tomkins touched the ball down after the foul.

Anyone got Gansons phone number?

Ask him to explain it all please.


And HKRForever.... stop being a prat.

You are quite correct, no penalty was awarded - my mistake (the sending off implies that it was deemed foul play however)

On the first point, I feel that the action of diving is part of touching down - again, why would he be diving if he were not in the process of touching down. If he was stationary and bending over to touch down when the foul occurred then this would be the same situation expect the incident in question occurred at high pace

If somebody was bending over to touch the ball down and he was knocked unconscious and the fouling player was sent off then I am sure an 8 pointer would be given and yet this is identical yet at a faster pace

You could argue (as I have done earlier in this thread) that Raynor could reasonably plead that he was trying to play the ball etc and misjudged but if the sending off occurred then the referee deemed it to be fouled play and therefore the 8 pointer was justified in my opinion

Was it Ganson or the video referee who made the call to send Raynor off? Ganson was a yard away when the tackle took place but didn't blow up for foul play.

Contrast this indecision with the instant decision to award St Helens a match drawing penalty at the KC stadium, which on replays was clearly shown to be a totally incorrect decision



It should have been an 8 point try IMO. Only slow motion pictures revealed the contact from Raynor, and also made it look as if Tomkins was some way from grounding the ball, when it was less than a second.

It may be to you, but that can only be because you either can't, or won't, think about the point. You can't handle the truth!



The penalty decision is given at the moment the offence is committed. It is not given retrospectively. So when hit, Tomkins was not a try scorer.


You quote the law but you fail to read it. "In the period during which the ball is touched down" doesn't include "the period before the ball is touched down.


Not good enough. By saying what period the law DOES cover ( "In the period during which the ball is touched down"icon_wink.gif, this by definition excludes anything else.


No, that would be you. You are the one having to make implications into what you think the law "must have been" meant to also include. I'm the one sticking to the letter of the law.


Well, from the wording, it just is. And I've explained whuy. You saying my point about what if Tomkins had dropped it is a distraction is just the same as admitting you can't answer my point.


Hang on, I've been regularly quoting the actual wording of the law. I might from time to time use other terms, as do you, but I have specifically defined what the period of touching down is. I have even said I could understand a decision where technically the ball may have been an inch or so before that period, but in a ref could not be expected to see that, and tries may well be given. What you cannot do is extend a de minimis case to the Tomkins incident, which was not such a case.

That's an inference on your part. In other words, it isn't something that is explicitly stated in the laws, such as the statement "but not to any subsequent period", but is in fact an assumption on your part. Ironic then, that you should accuse me of failing to read the laws; you are in fact reading what you want to see!


Again, you are confusing "period" with "moment". They are not the same thing and it is an assumption on your part once more that when the laws say period they mean moment. By saying what period the law covers ("in the period during which the ball is touched down"icon_wink.gif the laws identify a period of time the law applies to and an event within it which defines it as the applicable period - the qualifying period and the event which happens [iduring [/iit are two separate things which you repeatedly, but mistakenly, conflate.


Not at all. I'm afraid you are accusing me of the very thing you are guilty of yourself (again). For example, you have inferred exclusions from the law such as "doesn't include the period before the ball is touched down" (your words, not the laws). The law says no such thing, so how can you claim you are sticking to the letter of it? The laws explicitly state that the period after the ball is touched down is excluded and make no mention of excluding the period before; [iyou[/i are presenting what you think "must have been meant". You would have us believe the RFL aren't competent enough to state that the antecedent period is excluded when they clearly state the subsequent period is. Did they forget? Pah!


You haven't given an explanation except to [iassert[/i that the laws exclude something they do not! It can be proven that the laws exclude the subsequent period, for example, by quoting them: [iexcluding any subsequent period.[/i You cannot provide anything more than an assertion that they exclude the antecedent period because the laws simply do not exclude it.

Poor. Pish poor. Can't you give up flogging this dead horse? Look - the law also doesn't explicitly state that it excludes Wednesdays between 3-4.30 am. I'm not "inferring" that it doesn't, it just doesn't!

You're rambling, thinking it sounds educated. It doesn't. I'm referring specifically to the phrase the law states. Nothing else. I don't need to.

Please stop making things up, it is becoming tiresome. A stated period just does not include a period before the stated period. No inference made, no inference required.
You are the only one who would need an inference. You are seeking to infer that the phrase must have been intended to include a period before touching down, but that's just because without your inference, your argument is lost.

Well, I wasn't there, and doubt you were either, butwhether or not they "forgot", their wording used DOES, [ide facto[/i exclude any preceding period.

"Please keep quiet during the period in which I am talking". Does that request ask you to keep quiet in any period [i before[/i I start talking? Of course not. You are the sort of person who would argue that it might mean I want you to keep quiet a few seconds, or a minute, or an hour earlier than the start of my speech. But, indisputably, I did not include any antecedent period in my request. Not a minute. Not 0.24 sedonds. Nothing. You are free to talk until the moment I start.
Anyone who wants to argue that my request actually means you must shut up at an earlier time is, simply, placing a meaning on my words which they cannot and do not bear.

I'm sure you'd give it a go, but you'd be wrong then, just as you're wrong now.

Er, you've just resurrected this thread mate. I'm beginning to see that your specialty is to project your own misdemeanors or mistakes onto others.


You're starting to sound quite agitated again, but alas, all you've produced, again, is assertions without anything to back them up. I made specific points and you've done nothing except label them as "poor". You had the opportunity to address them and have only given your judgment on them, turning it, once again, into "I'm right, you're wrong" instead.

The laws do not exclude the antecedent period. If you would like to provide a quote in which the laws do so then be my guest; in the absence of such a quote, it is you, my friend, who, by claiming things such as "does not include the preceding period", is "making things up". You need only exclude what the laws tell you to exclude, nothing more. To exclude more is to assume what the laws "must have meant". Can you see how everything you accuse me of is something that you are actually doing yourself?


I wouldn't argue any such thing, because you said "talking" which, even without anything else (such as "period"icon_wink.gif denotes when this rule applies. In reality, the request is more likely to be "Please keep quiet [iwhen[/i I am talking" because "the period in which" is redundant. Whilst you may use such a phrase to make a point, I wouldn't expect an official body to make the same mistake. Intentionally or otherwise, combining "period in which" and "talking" is obfuscation. Your inability to recognise the difference between different phrases purposefully used by the RFL is what leads to your confusion on this matter and your subsequent repetition of erroneous claims. For example, a try is scored "when the ball is grounded", but the rule pertaining to fouls against a try scorer applies to "the period during which the ball is grounded." I'm afraid you can argue until you are blue in the face that the RFL meant one when it said the other, either because they forgot, don't know the difference themselves or for another reason you've cooked up, but I for one will continue to read the rules as though the RFL intended everything they did say, did not intend things they didn't say, and know what they are doing when they choose certain words and phrases over others.

Anyway, since we've both surely said all we can on this and you oppose the flogging of dead horses, I take it you'll accept my rebuttal and put this one to bed.

This may have been discussed before but, if Tomkins was unconscious before be hit the ground, which he clearly was, can he have been judged to have had any control over the ball or exerted the downward preside needed to score a try seeing as it was just fluke that the ball remained in his possession?

It just needs to be downward pressure, no control is actually needed. Certainly was a fluke though! How many players can claim to have scored a try whilst unconscious?