And not before time.

Likean opponent who is touching down for a try'"

You are confusing "who" the law applies to with "when" the law applies.

No I'm not. The law applies to a player who is touching down for a try. It does not apply to a player who isn't touching down for a try. Tomkins was not touching down for a try when he was fouled. The law did not apply. It really is that simple.

Clearly the RFL do not agree with you. They took the time to identify both the player and the period to which it applies.

By the way, Tomkins was touching down when the foul was committed, he just hadn't touched down. Yet another person confused by the tenses of the English language.

God man you're relentless, right decision was given, just accept it and move on.

Nah, not me. I'm merely responding to others who are relentless.


In your opinion.


If this discussion bothers you, then the obvious solution is to not read it or post in it, rather than telling others not to engage in it.

Yes, they say it applies to a player who is touching down and it only applies when he is touching down. This is the same thing. It did not apply in this case as Tomkins was not touching down when fouled - the ball was not on the ground and so was not being touched down.

Your desire to change the law so it applies to some period before the ball is touched down does not mean that the wrong decision was made.

Wrong. You have either not read the law or have deliberately used different words to describe it. If you can provide a direct quote in which the law says "when the ball is touched down" I'll gladly concede the point, but we both know it applies to "the period during which the ball is touched down".

On the contrary, you have just demonstrated beyond doubt that it is you who wishes the law to be changed to say something that it patently does not.

Well your minds made up, so this isn't a discussion, Ganson is wrong everyone else is wrong and you're right and so endeth this thread.

If you're going to play the moderator you could at least pretend to be impartial and not make it so obvious you want the discussion closed because I hold an opinion different to your own.

I mean, why target me for not letting it drop? Why not criticise anyone else for not changing their opinion? Does the privilege to respond with a counter argument not extend to me?

You're arguing against something that's set in stone, it's like arguing against gravity and wondering why no one agrees with you.

I only become impartial in a dispute between 2 other people, otherwise i'm putting my opinion across.
Does the privilege to respond with a counter arguement not extend to a Mod

With respect, you're starting to sound really paranoid now. You were patently not being modded.

If he, or I, or anyone, replies to a post of yours, we are indeed targetting you. Like your post targets the post you replied to. What do you suggest - posting the reply on some unrelated thread, maybe even on a different forum?

Apart from that, did the obvious not occur to you, that if a mod "wants the discussion closed" they would just lock the thread?

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE Mr. Moderator can we have this thread locked. It's now turned into a private argument. Let them exchange e-mail addresses and carry it on in private.