Having watched the game back for the first time last night, there is no defence for Raynor and it was defo a 8pnt try, how that was not called as a penalty I will never ever know, Ganson even asks for Silverwood to look for the possible 8pt try but it never comes, without video ref I reckon Ganson would have given it

I found that interesting as well, Ganson would have given it but silverwood defied logic and didn't

Might the problem not be that there is no " 8 point try" that can be flashed on the big screen?. There was no doubt that it was a try ( Ganson had a good view of the grounding) and it was redundant to show "Try". If he'd shown "Penalty" then it might have given the impression to viewers and spectators it wasn't a try!

Another example of where a ref's call might have got a more accurate appraisal of an incident than going to the video ref did.

When I watched the game back I'm sure I heard Ganson ask Silverwood not to put the decision on the screen because he wanted him to go through some other things. A few seconds later the decision is put on the screen. I don't know the rules about such decisions but perhaps since Ganson went to the screen the decision to award an 8 point try has to come from the video ref, and since the decision already went up on screen there was nothing Ganson could do about it.

There is. It comes up "Try, Penalty Attack" like a "No Try, Penalty Attack" etc. or something like that.

The other bizarre thing was that after the try, when Pat lined up the kick, Ganson stood behind him and brought his arms together - The same signal as for a team that has decided to kick for goal after a penalty.

My suspicion is that it was always meant to be an 8-pointer, but the second kick was never taken or maybe Ganson thought that we had already kicked once.

All-in-all "a right schimozzle" as the bald one would say. Just a good job it didn't cost us.

You're correct; an eight point try can ony be given as the ball in touch down, not before or after.

That isn't what The Laws say. A penalty is awarded when a foul is committed "in the period during which the ball is touched down for a try and not to any subsequent period"; not, as you seem to think, at the moment the ball is touched down. If that was the case the RFL would have stated "when the ball is touched down for a try and not to any subsequent [ior antecedent[/i period."

The RFL have clearly and, we must assume, purposefully stated that there is a [iperiod of time[/i during which a penalty can be conceded, and that this period ends when the ball is touched down for a try ("no subsequent period"icon_wink.gif. Tomkins had begun the try scoring motion and the ball hit the deck 0.24 seconds after the strike (that's 6 frames in my 25fps recording, you see) so it cannot really be argued that it didn't occur in the period during which the ball was touched down for a try. People who argue against the 8 point try do so only by disingenuously pointing out that it did not occur at the [imoment[/i of contact between ball and ground, which has no bearing to The Laws.

Fames. You seem to have missed the point. From what I can remember Ganson told Silverwood that he knew a try had been scored, but could he look at what happened when Tomkins was in the act of scoring because he wasn't sure what Raynor had done. On the first replay it looked as if Raynor had caught him around the chest, however a second angle on the replay showed a blatent punch. It's not an 8 point try anyway, it's a try, conversion attempt, and then a penalty kick on the 10 metre line.
For what it's worth, I think it should have been a conversion followed by a penelty because Sam was in the act of scoring. Imagine the trouble that would have been caused if this had happened in the 79th minute with Wigan 7 points behind. I think an explanation from Stuart Cummings should be in order.

So do I.

It may be, of course, that we've just stumbled upon one of these grey areas (a la the famous Saints header), which may indicate that a further clarification of the law is necessary.

If it's genuinely the case that 'in the act of scoring a try' only refers to the milisecond of the actual touchdown, and doesn't include the two or three miliseconds preceding it as the scorer is in the act of touching down, then it's surely nonsensical.

Made even more nonsensical (is that a word? lol) by the fact that this means there is a grey area that could be exploited like three men in a tackle ripping a ball to save a try that is certain otherwise or players taking players heads off right near the end of a game to save a try that could have been the winner etc. They need to clarify this really just in case that sort of thing starts to happen.

The real question is why a player can commit an offence so serious that he is dismissed from the field, yet the opposing side is not awarded a penalty.

YES!!!!

This is the long and short of it - had he not touched down I'm sure it would have been a penalty try but as he did touch down there should have been a kick on the 10

Can you imagine if this had happened at the expense of Leeds.

Hetherington would already be having another of his famous private meetings with the RFL.

If diving over the line with the ball safely in his hands isn't in the act of scoring, then what is?