Watching the RU highlights on TV the other night (bear with me!)

The winger kicked ahead into the in-goal, and touched the ball down, which was in play, but his feet were clearly outside the touch-and-goal sideline. The ref confirmed with the video ref that the fact he was out of play when he touched it down didn't matter as long as the ball itself was in play. So that was a try. Had he been holding the ball with his feet out, of course it wouldn't be a try. But they draw a distinction between being in possession of the ball, and situations where you are touching down a ball that is already in the in-goal.

Enquiring about this on another forum, I was given chapter and verse of the rules. If fact, the winger could have been outside the side-line, as well as the touch-and-goal, and still touch it down legally, apparently.

It seems to me to be a basic principle that you need to be in the field of play (or mid-air!) to score a try.

I stated confidently,"That would never be a try in league."

But would it? Now I'm not so sure. Any definitive views?

Definitely not a try in League and I'm suprised it was in Union. It makes no sense.

In League the player would have to have to be in-field (ie the last time his feet or any part of his body touched the ground were in the field of play) when he touched the ball to score.

Makes no sense to me.

It's a ridiculous law but it certainly is true
rule 22.4 Other ways to score a try
g) Player in touch or touch-in-goal. If an attacking player is in touch or in touch-in-goal, the player can score a try by grounding the ball in the opponents’ in-goal provided the player is not carrying the ball

As others have said, not a try in league, don't understand the union rule there. If any part of the player is on the line in league then it is out of touch and disallowed, even just a little centimetre of foot

Thanks guys. I felt the same as you; a crazy and illogical rule. I don't know if that law has always applied in union, but I can't ever remember seeing it before. (It was Christian Wade of Wasps against Saracens if anyone's interested).

I'm pleased our code has more sense!

They need any excuse to give a try in that game

They'll be giving points out for effort next.

I watched a bit of one of the Super Rugby games last week (think it was Chiefs v Highlanders). There were two penalty tries awarded in the space of about 10 minutes both for scrums collapsing. I know those are the rules but it's boring as hell. In fact the Chiefs spent over 25 minutes (not exaggerating, this is the stat that was shown), in the Highlanders 22 and two penalty tries and a penalty were all they could muster for the entire game.

Yep. It is a problem in their game. Teams deliberately play to try and get either penalties or penalty tries from infringements in the scrums & mauls.

The best thing Union could do (without losing 2 players, scrapping lineouts ) is to change the reward for penalties back to 2 & stop giving the penalty tries for such infringements. If they gave out yellow cards for repeated infringements near the line instead then teams would still at least have to score a try to get their points.

Also they need to do something about the mauls. It's become ridiculous as a means of scoring tries. As the ball is at the back of the maul It's just obstruction. It doesn't require skill to perform and is very dull. Again, another slight change of the rules solves the issue. Say if you want to have the physical support of your teammates then the ball has to be at the front of the maul, not the back, if you want to move forwards as a maul. Then the ball carrier can be tackled. It would also help eliminate the situations that currently lead to the penalty tries, that of teams forming mauls 5 yards out from the try line and just trundling forward. The defence have little to no chance of stopping it without bring the maul down, which leads to the penalty try.

Take a fair effort not to get the ball down in the in goal as they're usually 50 feet deep

And yet, tries from well placed kicks are still relatively rare.


Go figure.

Partly because they're just as easy to defend. Touch the ball down in your own in goal and get a 22 dropout. Hence is ceases to become part of the game. Their loss

Not just a question of 'easy to defend', I think. Poor kicks in league are easy to defend, too. did you see Jack Wighton for the Raiders against the Sharks the other day? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQndnguSbjc More a lack of skills and awareness in the halves, I fear. Even the likes of George Ford, often praised for his kicking, has a kicking game nowhere up to SL, let alone NRL standards, in my book.

Not just a question of 'easy to defend', I think. Poor kicks in league are easy to defend, too. did you see Jack Wighton for the Raiders against the Sharks the other day? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQndnguSbjc More a lack of skills and awareness in the halves, I fear. Even the likes of George Ford, often praised for his kicking, has a kicking game nowhere up to SL, let alone NRL standards, in my book.