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?

Stick to the plot.


No, I have explained simply and succinctly why your points are wrong.


Circular. Again. If the law did not define the period it has in mind, then you could argue what was included or excluded. Unluckily for you, it does define it. It does not say that any antecedent period is included, and so you are having to make a case why it should be interpreted as including some earlier period, apart from the one it does include. As I said, the law does not exclude last Wednesday. Why isn't that included, then? I mean, it's not excluded, is it?

Thursday does not include any part of Wednesday. If the law said "during Thursday", you'd be arguing that it included part of Wednesday, because it doesn't specifically exclude it!


I am not "claiming", I am stating. It's you trying to decree that the the RFL mean to include, on top of what they state in the law, "...AND SOME ANTECEDENT PERIOD BEFORE THIS PERIOD"


Your logic is really hopeless. "The speed limit is 30" does not specifically exclude 40. A law does not have to provide an endless list of what it excludes. It is perfectly normal to simply state what it includes. Anyone claiming it must have been intended to include something else has an uphill task. I credit you with persistence, but am concerned that you fail to grasp such simple concepts.


But that is what you are doing


And this proves what? The try attempter is attempting to ground the ball during this period. If he successfully does so, the ball is grounded, and a try is scored. He is then a try scorer. Your argument allows that he is a try scorer even if, in the event, he fails to complete the grounding and so never scores a try.


this much is true.


Great. I just wish you would, though. I'll try to help, because despite the uphill task, I would like you to achieve an understanding of your error.
Here's one thing they did say: "the period during which the ball is grounded"
Here's one thing they didn't say:
".... and by the way, you can add to that some indeterminate antecedent period".



With pleasure, having demolished it. Would that be now, though, or in some antecedent period, though?

Sorry, but that is wrong. A ball carrier only has to "place the ball on the ground". He can do so as gently as he likes. He does not need to exercise any downward pressure whatsoever. More to the point, the rule (or in this case, the definition) does not require him to.

You are confusing the situation of a ball carrier, with the situation of where the ball is loose, itself being on the ground. THAT is the situation where a try can be scored by exerting downward pressure.

There's dropping on a loose ball as well, but I won't confuse you further.

I'll skip the terrible comparisons with days of the week and speed limits and move on to something that actually has pertinence. I agree that if the law had stated that it applied when the ball was touched down, such as with other RFL laws, there would be no requirement to explicitly state that the period before the ball is touched down is excluded since the word "when" does this already. If, however, it states that the law applies to a period which ends when the ball is touched down but actually means (in your opinion) that it "begins when the ball is touched down" then both subsequent and antecedent periods must be excluded. If that were the case, however, then I'm sure the RFL would say "when the ball is grounded" as they are clearly capable of doing so.

One cannot place a ball on the ground using upward pressure, no mater how gentle one is. The ground is below the ball; as such, downward pressure is simply another way of stating that it must be placed on the ground. The answer to the poster's question, then, is that he does not need to control it.

You can never admit being wrong, can you? The requirement for a ball carrier scoring doesn't include the term "downward pressure". You mixed up the definition, but can't bring yourself to admit it.

OTOH, you said "It just needs to be downward pressure, no control is actually needed ". I would suggest that the requirement to "place" the ball does imply a degree of control, "place" being a thing that is hard to do if you have lost control of the ball. Wouldn't you say? And certainly, that's the way the law seems to be applied.

oh dear, this thread has gone all 'Smokey Versus Starbug' on us.

And not before time.

Like:



See the law clearly says it applies to a player who [iis[/i touching down for a try. Not an opponent who is diving in order to be able to touch down for a try.

You are confusing "who" the law applies to with "when" the law applies.

No I'm not. The law applies to a player who is touching down for a try. It does not apply to a player who isn't touching down for a try. Tomkins was not touching down for a try when he was fouled. The law did not apply. It really is that simple.

Clearly the RFL do not agree with you. They took the time to identify both the player and the period to which it applies.

By the way, Tomkins was touching down when the foul was committed, he just hadn't touched down. Yet another person confused by the tenses of the English language.