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.

Except that is not what the rule says. It specifically rules out actions AFTER the try is scored. The issue is what constitutes the act of "touching the ball down".

And he should be penalised for getting a risky tactic so badly wrong.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lqXKnCsaQM Is this any different to what occured on Sunday? Both were in the act of touching down imo.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lqXKnCsaQM Is this any different to what occured on Sunday? Both were in the act of touching down imo.

he wasn't touching the ball down though was he?

he hadn't even reached out to put the ball down at the time of impact.... he was just falling towards the try line... the ball was more than a few feet away from the line.

Why should it be a penalty if he'd scored and been punched but not if he'd been punched and scored? It doesn't make sense. In both circumstances he has scored, and in both circumstances he has been punched. Surely the RFL have designed the laws to award a) a penalty try in cases where a try is denied by foul play and b) a penalty kick in cases where a player is fouled but scores/has scored anyway. As for your first point, we know Tomkins was in the act of scoring not simply because he was crossing the line but because [ihe did in fact go on to[/i score. If a player scores it stands to reason that at some point before that he was in the act of scoring.

It doesn't have to have been scored - it has to be in the process of being scored. For something to be in the process of happening it must, by definition, not have completely happened yet. Scoring is not the same as scored; touching down not the same as touched down. For a player to be scoring means, categorically, that they have not scored yet; if a try is being scored it has not been scored; if a ball is being touched down it has not been touched down. The rules would explicitly state that a penalty must only be awarded "after" a try if that was the intention.


Apparently it is.

it wasn't being scored though... that's why is WASNT given.

post to the whistle lad.

Now i am confused.

Is there some way of looking at the official rules (link).

Wasn't it? I'd suggest that at the point of contact Tomkins arms are reaching forward. The only reason for that would be to score a try. Hence why I believe Tomkins was fouled in the act of scoring.

just read the wigan board..... that should clear up any doubts you have.

i think raynor is being hung tomorrow outside primark.

i dont think the rules give a flying f*ck what you believe.