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.

Correct. Search the laws for the terms "when" and "period" to see that a) there is a difference, and b) the RFL are aware of it.

More sense, however, than a baseless assertion that I'm wrong. No explanation for why the RFL forgot to exclude the antecedent period? Still no explanation for why the word period, and indeed the English language in general operate differently when used by the RFL? Thought not.

Please learn the difference between past and present tense. You've been doing this all thread now and it's beyond tiring.

Have you looked at the "Jamie Soward Kicks Greg Inglis instead of tackling" try? Jamie Soward kicks Inglis well before he grounds the ball, and an 8-pointer is awarded. This is actually the most comparable to the Tomkins incident in that the ball still had a few feet to travel and a grounding was not certain. I've also quoted Cummings approving an 8-pointer for Thomas Leuluai incident where he goes in with his feet before the ball is grounded. There we have 2 incidences of 8-pointers awarded for fouls prior to grounding.

Conversely, I've also given examples of 8-pointers awarded for fouls after grounding - as the article I've quoted says, it is intended to prevent shots on try scorers.

It seems clear to me the 'period' is not the instant the ball is grounded, but is there to protect the exposed try-scorer from shots during the entire act of grounding.

If the rules referred only to the moment/instant of grounding, they would state so.

Yes.


I haven't made any appeals, not to a majority, not to a minority, not even a single appeal to a single person. But hey keep right on making things up.


As SBR has just set out the same point as mine I won't repeat it. It's not an argument, it's a fact. One you will never accept, but still.


Your weird claim that the RFL must have meant to include a period earlier than the stated period, because they didn't exclude it? Yep, that's exactly what your "argument" amounts to.

Sigh. You are mistaken. I was referring to your rlargumentum ad populumrl, a logical fallacy also known as "appeal to majority" in which a proposition is claimed to be true because many people believe in it.


If it was a fact you would be able to demonstrate its validity. Instead you just keep repeating "I'm right, you're wrong, I'm right, you're wrong..." I keep asking for answers to questions such as why period doesn't mean period in these circumstances, but have been given no answer. I've asked why you assume the RFL exclude something when it is patently clear they would explicitly exclude it if they meant to do so, but I've got no answer. You are simply repeating assertions without any argument. At least I'm giving explanations as to why "period" doesn't mean "moment", and why excluding "subsequent periods" doesn't equate to excluding "antecedent periods". All you can come back with is "Yes it does. Fact." Like that has any logical value.


Actually, since you are making the claim that they did exclude it, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they did. Ridiculing the argument that "they didn't exclude it because the exclusion isn't there in the text" is all well and good but it gets you nowhere besides suggesting your own argument is baseless. I mean, I keep asking you for proof, for quotes, for just anything that substantiates your claim that they excluded it. As for my counter-argument that you say is "weird", I'd say it's pretty logical that if the RFL wished to exclude 2 timeframes from the applicable period they would not write only 1 exclusion into the text of the law. Without the 2nd exclusion your claim is merely an inference, a guess on your part, just like I said... well, about 10 pages ago. Have you come up with that evidence since way back then, or are you still waffling to distract from your non-argument?


But you haven't said anything that isn't "I'm right, you're wrong" wrapped up in waffle.


If you have an argument to present I'm more than willing to listen to it. I enjoy a good debate, but it's a little frustrating when someone simply insists they are right for 14 pages rather than presenting a logical and reasoned account of the validity of their position.