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