great site lads.

Top Quality Decision

Or not.

Which is the same thing. The period during which the ball is touched down does not include the period before or after the ball is touched down.

I'm not getting sucked into this, but - surely if the intent of the law was to refer to the moment the ball is grounded ONLY, it would read something to that effect instead.


"The period" is the grey area here. And for me it refers to the moments during the act of scoring - and is essentially down to referee's discretion. If the player is in the act of grounding and is fouled; or indeed has grounded and is (for example) flopped on violently, the ref can choose to award an additional penalty. For me, the non-applicable "subsequent period" here refers to if they have scored, got up and it kicks off, for example.

rlThis articlerl seems to feel the rule was introduced to prevent late hits on try scorers, which we still see in RU,and to be honest that makes the most sense. The SoO 8-pointer they talk about was for Thurston kicking Williams immediately after grounding. There's a poor quality clip on YouTube, or a rlpic here.rl

However - Stuart Cummings says in rlthis response to a questionrl that a Thomas Leuluai incident could have been an 8-pointer. I recall the incident and Leuluai slid in with his feet just as the ball was about to be grounded, as in, immediately prior to grounding.

Further, if you look up "Jamie Soward Kicks Greg Inglis instead of tackling" in the usual place, Jamie Soward kicks Inglis before he grounds the ball, and an 8-pointer is awarded. This is probably the most comparable to the Tomkins incident in that the ball still had a few feet to travel.

So it seems 8-pointers are awarded for a foul as the attacker is in the act of grounding; not just in the instant the ball is grounded.

By definition it does. It is a period, not a moment. You have mixed these up throughout this thread and are simply rehashing your other responses based on this failure to make a distinction between period and moment, and the erroneous belief that the RFL don't know the difference either.

If the period did not include any other timeframe than the moment the ball was touched down then it would be just that - a moment - and it therefore could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be defined as a "period", nor could it include an event which happens "during" it. In such a case it owuld be referred to as "when the ball is touched down" in order to the distinguish the moment from a period. Furthermore, the RFL would not have taken the time to exclude the time after the ball has been touched down if it went without saying that this time was excluded. And finally, since they do specifically exclude subsequent periods from the applicable period, it stands to reason that the antecedent period is not excluded since they do not exclude it. Ergo, we are talking about a period of time during which the ball is touched down, not the moment at which the ball is touched down. To argue that the law refers to a moment is to wish the law to be changed from what it currently is.

There's one man who thinks it means your version. That's you. But there was no eight pointer, and while credit to you for staying on your toes, like some Japanese octogenarian squaddie hiding in the jungles of Guadalcanal rather than surrender, but really, it is now just you.


Ergo? Did you say "ergo"?

One man. If you exclude everyone I agreed with on this thread. You know, like the post three above this one that you've somehow missed.
Ergo? Did you say "ergo"? The credit is yours, for managing to waffle for 14 pages with comments such as that without once discrediting my argument. Well done you.

Concentrate on the word "period" if it was only at the immediate moment the ball is being grounded it would be called "as the ball is being grounded" surely?

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.