That is precisely what I, and the laws of the game, are saying.



It does stand to reason. A major problem with your suggestion that they award a penalty after a try for an offence that occurred before the grounding is how far back do you go?

When the offence occurs before the grounding (as in this case) the try scoring team has already been given an advantage by the ref allowing play to continue and awarding the try. You can have the penalty or the try, not both. It is only in the rare instance of the offence being committed when the ball is actually being grounded that no advantage has been given and so the 8 point try addresses that.

So easily in fact that, despite being completely out cold at the point of the picture, he still managed to have a good enough grip on it to ground it?


Clearly you do, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing about it.

I don't think it's pretty clear at all, I think it needs rewriting. They say both touching and touched, which are two different tenses.

The 8 point try rule cannot apply after the ball is grounded, the rules are at least clear on that aspect. So I think it's reasonable to suggest that the term "try scorer" applies to Tomkins whilst he is touching the ball down. As EGW has pointed out it's a split second between the offence and the try being scored. I don't think it's beyond the bounds of reason to suggest that literally a split second before the try is scored a player reaching out to put the ball down could be construed as in the act of scoring.

I'll say it again. There can be no 8 point try for any offence that happens after the ball touches the ground. So it's not unreasonable to suggest the law is meant to apply to the act of scoring.

Also that ball in he picture is no way 4 foot away from the line, it's almost directly above the line. It's also not 4 foot in the air, unless Steve Ganson is now 8 foot tall.

It's also interesting to note that the NRL use the same rule, worded in exactly the same way and there have been at least 2 relatively recent 8 point tries given for offences that happened immediately prior to the ball being touched down.

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.

9.220703125:10