I've seen far worse incidents with knees going in on players scoring going un punished. Ganson's only sent him off due to him bring knocked out.

I thought Raynor was just helping him with his planking

So, you're basically saying that that decision can only be given in the nanosecond that the ball is in contact with the player's hand and the ground. If that's the case, what's the point in having the rule at all then?

Not quite, but the rule had to be changed because of how broad a spectrum people were asking it to be applied to, no one really knew. If you concede a penalty before the try scoring act its either a penalty or a penalty try, not an 8 point try. Following that a penalty cant be given when the balls dead. It has to be within these timeframes was my understanding

Seems to be my understanding of it. Until the ball is grounded any offence will, as you say, be a penalty or penalty try, whereas when the ball has been grounded and a foul is committed then the 8 point try is awarded.

You cant give a penalty of any kind after the ball is grounded, its deemed "dead".

I agree with FA. Although we don't know the intent chances are he was trying to knock the ball out. But, he didn't and it was a clear red card offence - any other decision would have embarassed the sport on national TV.

What this interpretation would mean was that a player who is punched unconscious and is prevented from scoring would receive a penalty, a player who is punched unconscious after the ball is grounded would also receive a penalty, but a player who is punched unconscious moments before the ball hits the ground, but who scores nonetheless, would not. I can't think of a logical reason why the RFL would require a penalty to be awarded to the player who has scored and been fouled but not the player who has been fouled and has scored, particularly when the difference in real terms is mere milliseconds. The infringement remains the same, as does the fact that a try has been scored.

If that truly was the intened implementation of the law the RFL would surely have used the word "grounded" instead of "grounding". I can honestly not think of a reason why the law would not explicitly state that the ball must be grounded in order to be eligible for a penalty if that really was the intention.

The problem lies in the timeframe

At what point is it deemed a try scoring act?

When the try is being scored. 4 foot in the air and, I cant remember exactly but 3 metres from where the ball was grounded isnt the try scoring act, albeit not far from

Joel Tomkins dropping on Myler last year with the knees was a good few seconds after he had grounded the ball..... if we dont get an 8 point try for that one.... wigan CERTAINLY shouldn't get one when the foul was committed before the ball was grounded.

We didn't get one so you shouldn't....boo hoo....it shouldn't matter if the ball is grounded or not, whether it's before or after or whatever. A foul is a foul, dangerous play is dangerous play no matter where on the field or when during the game. Should've been a penalty. In effect Wigan were punished because they were about to maybe possibly potentially about to perhaps score a try.

I imagine if Tomkins had lost the ball when he was clocked then a penalty try would have been awarded.

maybe if he hadn't of been knocked out, he would have dropped the ball and knocked on.



The player was injured in the process of raynor attempting to STOP the try from being scored.

it's no 8 point try by the letter of the law..... the Myler try on the other hand, was .... thats what i was pointing out boo hoo.

If that is the case then there is no better argument for the rule to be clarified or changed.

I'm also in agreement with FA's post. Don't believe it was intentional, that doesn't mean it wasn't dangerous.

I was at the game and absolutely no one in the ground saw what happened. All anyone saw was Tomkins somehow sparked out.

It was only when it was replayed that the Wigan fans went nuts.

Would be interesting to know how the decision was arrived at. neither Ganson or the TJ's saw it happen and how can intent be established when the way the contact happened was not conclusive as to intent? Ganson could be heard saying direct contact with the head, and told Raynor it was unacceptable. Does this mean any head contact in a tackle or attempted tackle on now a red card?

Compelling game that Wigan won without ever clicking into top gear I felt.

Certainly it was a penalty try, because there was foul play, but a red card was the wrong decision IMO.

Makes me wonder how Leeds get a penalty try at Cardiff when a player does not even have the ball in his hands, but that incident wasn't considered worthy of one.

Ryan Atkins did exactly that in Perpignan, and the ref Ian Smith gave them a penalty under the sticks after Bosc had converted the try giving them an 8 point try.

First of all we must recognise a clear distinction between "try scoring act"/"grounding the ball" versus "having scored a try"/"grounded the ball". The laws utilise present tense phrases to indicate that the try is in the process of being scored rather than has been scored. If the laws were to use past tense words such as "grounded" or "scored" then we could assume that the ball must be grounded and, therefore, a try scored, before the law comes into play; the laws in fact use present tense to indicate that the try is in the process of [ibeing [/iscored but has not yet [ibeen [/icompleted, which would mean the ball is [ibeing [/igrounded, but hasn't yet [ibeen[/i grounded.

Granted, this still leaves some ambiguity regarding the point at which a try [ibegins[/i to be scored. On this point, however, I will respond to Dico, above, by posting the following two pictures, taken 0.24 seconds apart, which I believe show Sam Tomkins in the act of scoring (that is, having begun but not completed a try). The pictures show him a) to be in line with the try line when the foul is committed (not 4 feet in the air 3 metres away), and b) to have grounded the ball 0.24 seconds later. QED Tomkins was fouled in the act of scoring a try/grounding the ball and an 8 point try was required.

Exhibit A

Exhibit B


Oh, and Raynor was never, not in a million years, going for the ball.

2 matches.

Not an 8 point try, just because you're about to cross the line doesn't mean you'll score, look at Richards first disallowed try for example.

If he'd been punched after grounding it, then 8 point try

The only thing it would have been, at that distance, is a penalty try if Tomkins hadn't grounded it.

The point is that he had begun the act of scoring then scored thus he was fouled in the act which should mean a penalty after the conversion.

It is an 8 point try because as EGW and hula89 point out he was in the act of scoring. Plus, you contradict yourself. If it's not an 8 point try because he wasn't certain to score (in your point if view) then it also couldn't be a penalty try if Tomkins hadn't grounded it because in your view he wasn't certain to score, which is a prerequisite for a penalty try.

Should have been an 8 point try and it would be interesting to find out why neither or Ganson gave it as an 8 point try. It's a shame Stuart Cummings Q&A thing isn't still going. Although the amount of bullsh[ii[/it on the Internet has significantly reduced since that stopped.

How is it a contradiction?

If he hadn't grounded the ball it was only because he'd been fouled, the fouling being the only reason he didn't score meaning penalty try.

If he'd scored and then been knocked out then that is worthy of an extra 2 points.

What is the clarity on act of scoring?

You could say getting the ball on the 50metre mark and being fouled was in the act of scoring, how does the ref know he isn't going to break through 13 defenders and score?

The 'act of scoring' must be physically grounding the ball, at that second.

Theoretically, Rayner could have made contact elsewhere and Sam may have dropped the ball, so for me the contact wasn't in the act of scoring how I understand it.

Given that we've had an 8 point try in the competition, and another was mooted live on BBC, the RFL ought to say precisely what constitutes a foul in the act of scoring.

It's a contradiction because if he's not certain to score in the context of an 8 point try then he can't have been certain to score if the foul hadn't taken place and so a penalty try couldn't be given.
The certainty of scoring a try has to be the same in each scenario otherwise it's a contradiction.

Actually it's not worthy of another 2 points, the rule is specific in stating that any foul AFTER the try is scored foes not qualify as an 8 point try. It is not as specific on what constitutes the act of "touching the ball down" and can quite easily be interpreted as including the act of putting the ball over the line, which Tomkins was doing since he was reaching out to the line at the point of contact.

Because in that situation the referee can allow advantage to see whether he scores, the attackers then benefit from that advantage. In this case (and presumably why 8 point tries were brought in) there is no chance for advantage to be given that close to the line. The attackers have not gained any advantage since they would have scored anyway.

EXACTLY

the try hadn't been scored at the time of the 'tackle'.

its really not that hard to understand... if raynors swinging arm had hit its intended target (rat boys arm/body/the ball) he may well have knocked on and everyone would be saying how well he did to prevent a certain try.

as it happened he missed by a mile a knocked him out.

thats rugby.