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

Nowhere in the law does it state the player has to be the try scorer at the point he is fouled. In fact, given the clause stating that fouls after a try is scored cannot be an 8 point try, it is actually impossible to foul a try scorer and it be classified an 8 point try.

What the law says is "as an opponent is touching the ball down". So it comes down to the definition of what "touching the ball down" means. Now the NRL & ARL obviously take a view similar to that of EGW and myself, that it includes the a period immediately prior to the ball physically touching the ground ie the act of scoring, since in recent times they have given 2 8 point tries where the foul was immediately before the ball was touched down. IIRC 1 was for a foul on Greg Inglis and another was by Thurston in a State of Origin game.

So whilst you may disagree, it's not necessarily "nonsense" to interpret the law in that way.

Right back at you.


That's just another way of saying "I'm right, you're wrong." Since officials are fallible, the fact that an official made a particular decision cannot be taken as proof that such a decision was correct. I could just as easily say "The officials clearly did not know it, since they applied it incorrectly." That would be a circular argument.


Too late, it would seem.


And of course this is the very point at which our opinion differs. For me, a period during which something happens must be a period longer than the length of the thing happening within it, otherwise it would be a moment or an instant, and if that was the case I cannot fathom why the RFL didn't choose to explicitly state it as such. Thus, for something to happen within a period, the period must be longer than the thing which is happening [iwithin [/iit, and therefore the try scoring act during which the ball is touched down must be longer than the moment the ball is touched down. Just as 12ed down) occurs [iduring[/i the try scoring act. If it were otherwise the RFL would have used the term "at the moment of" as opposed to "during the period of".

The rules say it's a penalty try if a foul is committed against a player who is 'touching down' for a try. In my book, even though the ball was not actually in contact with the ground, Tomkins was in the act of 'touching down' for a try.

Given the decision of Ganson, who did not ask for a possible 8 pointer to be considered, and the video ref who saw the incident but chose not to award it, it must be taken literally that 'touching down' is only deemed to be occuring when hand, ball and ground in goal are simultaneously in contact.

I'll go with that. It is a shame that, if it is the intent, the Laws do not refer to the moment the ball is touched down. They could have used a phrase like "an opponent who is touching down for a try" to make it clear it only refers to when the ball is being touched down. As it would be obvious that a player isn't touching down for a try before the ball is touched down or indeed after the ball has been touched down.

It could be that they intended to mean the moment the ball is touched down and have unwittingly worded it ambiguously, but I would find it very odd that they would create a rule to award a penalty if an offence is committed against a try scorer and then, as an after thought, say "but we must make sure we don't award a penalty if the same offence is committed a split second before the ball touches the grass." I can't think of any benefit to the game of doing that, tbh, and it would almost be like a lottery for both the offender and non-offender in terms of whether they conceded/received an additional two points based on infinitesimally small timeframes.

If the offence happens before the ball is touched down then the non offending team has been given an advantage. If the offence happens when the player is touching down for the try then there is no advantage and so a penalty is awarded after the conversion attempt. This case is clearly the former.

Before he scores a try, he isn't a try scorer. It's really that simple.

You're confusing 2 different scenarios. Read that again and maybe you will see it is a non sequitur. Foul someone as he is touching the ball down and it is an eight pointer. But it's not possible to foul someone AFTER he scores the try and it to become an eight pointer.


I would agree, but when hit, Tomkins was not touching the ball down. You keep referring to the "act of scoring" but that isn't in the rule so is irrelevant.


You are comparing cases that are different. First, I would not be surprised to see a ref give an 8 pointer even if later slo-mos showed that the ball was not quite down at that instant, as the ref has to judge in real time, with no replays, and so it's understandable. This was not such a case.


In the case of Raynor's foul on Tomkins, I have t say it is nonsense as, with respect, I think it is, and so I can't put it any other way. It would be different if I thought the opposite could reasonably be argued, but I don't.

If you wanted to propose that the law was [ichanged[/i to include a defined "act of scoring", widely enough interpreted to include a case like Tomkins, that's different. I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but think you would then just run into precisely the same arguments as when the "act of try scoring" begins, and people trying to push that envelope. For example, Tomkins chose to sort of dive forward. What would you say if he hadn't? For example, many players use a technique of sliding down feet first, and touch the ball down gripped under one arm, on their side. This way they don't risk dropping the ball. What if that was Tomkins' MO, and so for that reason he hadn't dived, but the same thing happened? Would you say it is not an eight pointer, because his style of scoring tries is different from the diving style of scoring tries?

I hope (to avoid doubt) that the above comes across as reasoned argument and not as some seem to think, some form of rant. I think it is a very good discussion and the questions of what the law is and more to the point what we would all like it to be. And perhaps why it is as it is.

But the point which I don't think anyone has answered (because they can't) is as follows[sizeWhat if Tomkins had dropped the ball after being fouled?[/size
It is a minor miracle that he didn't, if he was unconscious, but certainly there was plenty of scope for him to do so.
I think you would have to agree that if he had dropped it, then the ref could not convert the "try" into an eight point try - for the very simple reason that there had BEEN no try scored to be upgraded. It would certainly be a penalty try.
And therein lies your answer. Tomkins was not touching the ball down, because he could easily have dropped it, lost it or had it knocked out, so the very real possibility of him never becoming "a try scorer" existed at the time of the foul. Indeed as I said I think it miraculous that a try was scored.
It is no use saying "But he didn't", because that is just missing the point, avoiding the issue, and closing your mind to the real issue. You would be arguing that after Raynor fouls him, the ref has to wait and see whether he is fouled badly enough to prevent the try, if yes, it's 6 points, if no, it's 8. That, I suggest, cannot be right.

You are saying that Tomkins was "a try scorer" at the moment he was fouled, but I am saying that IS nonsense, because the unlikely fact that he managed somehow to score does not retrospectively operate to make him a try scorer at the moment of the foul.

some of you make me laugh on here calling raynor a thug yea ok it wasnt the best thing i have ever seen but tomkins deserves it sometimes and wigan used to employ some of the biggest thugs in rugby league at one time

You see I think he was touching the ball down, as I believe the phrase "touching the ball down" includes the act of doing so not just the immediate instant the tip of the ball touches the ground.

Both of the Australian cases I gave were given after slow mo replay by the video refs. In both cases the ball was clearly not touching the ground at the point the foul was committed. I'm fairly sure a popular video sharing site will have them on somewhere. 1 was by Thurston in SOO 2009 game 3 and the other was by Jamie Soward on Greg Inglis this season in the NRL.

If Tomkins had dropped the ball it should have been given as a penalty try.

I am not suggesting the ref has to wait & see if Tomkins scored after the foul because it happens so quickly so no advantage is available to be given to Tomkins. If he'd been further out or the time between the foul and the try had been long enough for advantage to be given then fair enough and a simple penalty would suffice. The law rules out fouls after a try being scored but not fouls immediately prior to it. Despite the title of the rule, the actual rule itself doesn't mention the having to be a try scorer, it describes them as the opponent. Therefore I am not describing as a try scorer at the moment he is fouled, and the rule doesnot require him to be.

As I said it would be impossible for referees or even video refs to adjudicate on this accurately if the narrower definition of touching the ball down is used. Since cameras only operate at a certain amount of frames per second and so at what point do we decide the ball is grounded? The second? The millisecond? More accurate than that? How much of a range is acceptable between the ball touching the ground and the offence being committed?

Pray tell me why Sam Tomkins deserves being knocked out cold?

In practical terms it might, but the reason Tomkins was not, was as I keep saying, because there was plenty of opportunity of him still losing the ball. And if he did, then he never would be a try scorer. The problem with your version means an eight point try could still be given even if Tomkins dropped teh ball, if the ref nevertheless agreed with you he had been touching the ball down. Can you see why that doesn't work?


Precisely. So you ARE saying the ref has to wait and see what happens after the foul, and that cannot be right.


But you are doing exactly that. Or else if the ref could, as you say, give a penalty try, how could he do that if he didn't wait to see him drop the ball? Clairvoyance?



The clue is in the heading
It does, though.


Technically, none. I can understand why you might want there to be, but it would be unworkable.

Erm, if a try is not scored it cannot possibly qualify as an "offence against a try scorer". This "what if he dropped the ball" red herring is becoming a tedious distraction now.

He was diving because in order to touch the ball down he first has to get it to the ground. Diving first, then touching down, then having touched down. The law states (twice) it only applies to a player who is touching down. This happened after the dive and the foul.



No penalty was awarded. Ganson allowed the advantage as Tomkins touched the ball down after the foul.