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?

Just as an update, I asked this question to the lads at Wigan ref society via facebook, and they [uunanimously[/u agreed that, although Ganson usually gets it right and had a good game overall, it should have been an 8 point try.

IN that case though no try would have been given. tomkins was fouled, of that we have no doubt, when he was fouled he had not scored (yet) if the ref had wanted to give a penalty he would have not been able to give the try! as the play stopped at that point.

how? award a penalty fine but forfeit the try at that point because the foul happened before he scored. you can't have the best of both worlds.

Well, actually you can. That's WHY we have an 8 point try rule.

PENALTY TRY!
NO PENALTY TRY!
OUTRAGEOUS TELL ME MORE

As anyone mentioned that there may have been a forward pass in the Saints game on Good Friday

Has.

And the point of that was??

What is the point of education?

Who appointed you chief educator, because it's certainly not to patronise or humiliate! It's going to be very boring for us all for you to critique and correct every spelling and grammatical error in every post.

you just don't get it do you? if tomkins had got clattered as he actually placed the ball on the ground= 8 points
if penalty had been awarded (due to the fact that tomkins had not grounded the ball at the time of the punch) = 2 point penalty
as it went the ref allowed the play to continue and allowed the try to stand but then could not award a 8 pointer.

it's not hard really, all this "in the act of scoring" is clouding the facts! and EGW you may post silly smiley/ laughing faces as though you know what your talking about but if you read my post properly you may notice i'm right.









(was that enough emicons for you?)

Does the law apply a) to the moment when the ball is grounded, or b) to the [iperiod during which[/i the ball is grounded?

Answer: "This law applies to the period during which the ball is touched down for a try and not to any subsequent period."

Wigg'n

A = B


AND I FAIL TO SEE THE POINT YOU ARE MAKING, sorry not being obtuse just cannot see what point your making.

And therein lies the root of your misunderstanding of this law.

NAH, the ball is either touching the ground or not, if it is touching the ground it is being grounded, end off.
the act of grounding is what the player does to ground it. that act must be completed in order to get 4 points.

tell me i'm wrong!

tomkins whilst being fouled was doing neither. he was falling over the line and about to ground it nothing else, hence no 8 pointer.
if the fist had made contact as the ball touched the ground (which it clearly didn't) then he'd have awarded an 8 pointer.


does any one else fancy taking sides here or is it just me and EGW argueing for the sake of it?

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.