For that to be true the laws would have to state that a foul must be committed "as the ball touches the ground". Since these are your words and not the words used in the law it is clear you are wrong. Your problem is that you are failing to see the difference between a period and a moment. The law clearly and intentionally identifies a period, not a moment. The period is the applicable timeframe. If it was the grounding of the ball then they would state "when the ball is grounded." The RFL are quite capable of telling the difference between moment and period and in situations when they wish to indicate a moment they do use "when". Your argument is that the RFL meant one thing when they said another.

It's no wonder there's a heated debate going on about this. This appears to be yet another example of poor wording of rules and regulations by the RFL.

If the wording is "the period during which the ball is touched down" then this makes no sense. The ball is not touched down during a period, it is touched down in a single moment in time, surely?

Yet another RFL blunder.

your wrong.....as if you take your view there is no "in the act" as it is completed in both instances.

I understand the wording to be as follows:

"the period during which the ball is touched down"

This means the actual scoring of the try. As the player is scoring, and I mean literally ABOUT TO SCORE (Like Sam was), if a foul is committed, the extra kick should be given. You can't put a time frame to it, really, but I would expect the last half to one full second before the ball touches the floor to be the approximate limit. Alternatively it would be expected to happen less than a metre before the try line, or in the in-goal area only.

Also included is while the player is still in motion, say sliding along the floor. Anyone coming in with knees, elbows or feet after the ball is grounded, or contact to the head that would normally be penalised, the extra kick at goal should be given. Consideration should be given to whether the player was already committed to trying to prevent the try legitimately, especially in wet conditions.

Once the try scorer has stopped, had his try awarded by the referee, regained his feet and left the in-goal area, the period of try-scoring is complete. So any petulant punch or lash-out at the try-scorer as he's about to get up, or has regained his feet, still gains the extra kick at goal. However, any player who decides to push, punch or otherwise perform standard foul play as players are returning to their end of the field can still face the appropriate sanction from the referee as they would just anyway.

Well, that's what I think it SHOULD mean. I think we're well aware of how "uninforming" the wording of the rule is.

Can we knock this on the head now? It was over 2 weeks ago and had no bearing on the result!

Absolutely, plus if anybody had taken the time to watch it properly would have seen that it was just a simple error fom the VR, who was asked not to award the try until it had been established whether Raynor had commited a foul. This was ignored by the VR and the try was awarded so even though it was blatantly a foul an 8 pointer could not be awarded. Simples

i'm not sure if being partisan has any bearing on this tbh! the 2 points had no impact on the outcome of the game, as stated on here. i'm just trying to clarify in my own head what the rule means. people claiming i'm wrong are also saying the ref, the video ref & the RFL are wrong... i wonder where all these people got their in depth knowledge and ability to interpret the laws of rugby league from. after watching the game for 30 years + i still find certain rules ambiguous and hard to interpret at times. i have seen 8 pointers given for the same offence and not given for the same offence.
EGW your wasted on an internet forum, the united nations should be employing you as a legal advisor! (please read the sarcasm into this statement that it deserves)

That might have been the RFL's intention (and actually I agree with your interpretation, this is probably what they meant), but they got the drafting horribly wrong.

Personally I would have preferred them to have said something like in the act of touching the ball down as I think that concept is clearer than referring to a period in which the ball is touched down or just after or just before the ball is touched down, but either would be better than the present wording, which is nonsensical.

I think any ambiguous wording is going to be problematic, whether it's "in the period" or "in the act of". Both phrases raise questions around their definition: when does the period begin and end?; when does the act of scoring begin and end? You might be right, however, in that "in the act of" is conceptually clearer, even if some ambiguity remains. Diving, for instance, is arguably an obvious part of the act of try scoring. The only way to eradicate those questions fully, though, would be to have absolute applications of the law, such as "this law applies only when the ball is grounded" which, in this case, would create its own problem of allowing offences just before and after grounding. In cases where ambiguity is required I suppose we just have to accept that there will be a degree of ambiguity and hope the referees have enough guidance to make appropriate decisions.

is this still active.........cant you 2 debate by message......

Quote: wigan pie man "is this still active.........cant you 2 debate by message...... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum HTH

Quote: wigan pie man "is this still active.........cant you 2 debate by message...... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum HTH