Stick to the plot.


No, I have explained simply and succinctly why your points are wrong.


Circular. Again. If the law did not define the period it has in mind, then you could argue what was included or excluded. Unluckily for you, it does define it. It does not say that any antecedent period is included, and so you are having to make a case why it should be interpreted as including some earlier period, apart from the one it does include. As I said, the law does not exclude last Wednesday. Why isn't that included, then? I mean, it's not excluded, is it?

Thursday does not include any part of Wednesday. If the law said "during Thursday", you'd be arguing that it included part of Wednesday, because it doesn't specifically exclude it!


I am not "claiming", I am stating. It's you trying to decree that the the RFL mean to include, on top of what they state in the law, "...AND SOME ANTECEDENT PERIOD BEFORE THIS PERIOD"


Your logic is really hopeless. "The speed limit is 30" does not specifically exclude 40. A law does not have to provide an endless list of what it excludes. It is perfectly normal to simply state what it includes. Anyone claiming it must have been intended to include something else has an uphill task. I credit you with persistence, but am concerned that you fail to grasp such simple concepts.


But that is what you are doing


And this proves what? The try attempter is attempting to ground the ball during this period. If he successfully does so, the ball is grounded, and a try is scored. He is then a try scorer. Your argument allows that he is a try scorer even if, in the event, he fails to complete the grounding and so never scores a try.


this much is true.


Great. I just wish you would, though. I'll try to help, because despite the uphill task, I would like you to achieve an understanding of your error.
Here's one thing they did say: "the period during which the ball is grounded"
Here's one thing they didn't say:
".... and by the way, you can add to that some indeterminate antecedent period".



With pleasure, having demolished it. Would that be now, though, or in some antecedent period, though?

Sorry, but that is wrong. A ball carrier only has to "place the ball on the ground". He can do so as gently as he likes. He does not need to exercise any downward pressure whatsoever. More to the point, the rule (or in this case, the definition) does not require him to.

You are confusing the situation of a ball carrier, with the situation of where the ball is loose, itself being on the ground. THAT is the situation where a try can be scored by exerting downward pressure.

There's dropping on a loose ball as well, but I won't confuse you further.

I'll skip the terrible comparisons with days of the week and speed limits and move on to something that actually has pertinence. I agree that if the law had stated that it applied when the ball was touched down, such as with other RFL laws, there would be no requirement to explicitly state that the period before the ball is touched down is excluded since the word "when" does this already. If, however, it states that the law applies to a period which ends when the ball is touched down but actually means (in your opinion) that it "begins when the ball is touched down" then both subsequent and antecedent periods must be excluded. If that were the case, however, then I'm sure the RFL would say "when the ball is grounded" as they are clearly capable of doing so.

One cannot place a ball on the ground using upward pressure, no mater how gentle one is. The ground is below the ball; as such, downward pressure is simply another way of stating that it must be placed on the ground. The answer to the poster's question, then, is that he does not need to control it.

You can never admit being wrong, can you? The requirement for a ball carrier scoring doesn't include the term "downward pressure". You mixed up the definition, but can't bring yourself to admit it.

OTOH, you said "It just needs to be downward pressure, no control is actually needed ". I would suggest that the requirement to "place" the ball does imply a degree of control, "place" being a thing that is hard to do if you have lost control of the ball. Wouldn't you say? And certainly, that's the way the law seems to be applied.

oh dear, this thread has gone all 'Smokey Versus Starbug' on us.

And not before time.

Like:



See the law clearly says it applies to a player who [iis[/i touching down for a try. Not an opponent who is diving in order to be able to touch 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.

With all due respect, your last two comments weren't counter arguments. They took issue with me, and nobody but me, for continuing to post.

As for it being set in stone or like arguing against gravity, pull the other one! Nobody has presented an argument to show that the laws mean "when the ball is touched down" and the reason for that is they don't use that phrase!

great site lads.

I'm sure you know what I mean. The posts were OT criticisms of my continued engagement in the thread - something we're all guilty of, if guilty is the right word. But look, it's worked. Now we've stopped talking about the topic and yet more people are joining in the OT "discussion".

Top Quality Decision

Or not.