Yeah, just one of those daft rules I guess. Would like to think the RFL would look at this incident and possibly think about changing the rule, we can live in hope eh?

Only if the ref is 100% he'd have scored

I recall us getting a similar thing happen v Leeds a few year ago when Garry Connoly took Steve Prescotts head off and he dropped the ball whilt falling over the line, we got a penalty but no try

Steve Prescott has no head ?
Wow he must carry the torch !

Yeah I was assuming he would still have fallen over the line. Yeah I remember than Connolly incident and thought it was really harsh.

What [iwas[/i he doing then?

Well refs arent allowed to asume















Im sure the resident whistleblower in this thread will correct me if im wrong but i dont think an 8 point try could be allowed also, if say Tomkins would have grounded then 5 secs later whilst on the turf celebrating ,Raynor would have hit him

heading towards line in a diving motion

what if he had dropped it ?

Give him a minute, he's climbing down from his high horse. When he does respond will you ask whether he has any reffing experience? I don't think he mentioned.....

Are you Richard Silverwood?

That is correct, it's only if a player is fouled whilst touching down. I admit it's up to the referee to determine how long it takes for a player to 'touch down' but I don't think an 8 point try would be awarded in the above example.

You've pulled the same card, so don't criticise me for it.

You've still not presented a credible argument against the points I made. I understand that this incident involved your club, but you need to take a step back and look at the rules objectively. If that today had happened to Sinfield or McGuire I would be saying exactly the same thing.

I'm sure we will see clarification from the RFL this week. Until then, I will retire to my own board.

Says on BBC that Potter is to discuss the red card with Cummings. Quote I'll go through the appropriate channels. I thought he was trying to stop the try. '" news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 488522.stm

Says on BBC that Potter is to discuss the red card with Cummings. Quote I'll go through the appropriate channels. I thought he was trying to stop the try. '" news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 488522.stm

Quote ="MattyB"Says on BBC that Potter is to discuss the red card with Cummings. news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 488522.stm'" Bit daft if you ask me, what's he hoping to achieve? He'd do better to admit his player was in the wrong, regardless of whether he was trying to prevent the try being scored.

Quote ="MattyB"Says on BBC that Potter is to discuss the red card with Cummings. news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 488522.stm'" Bit daft if you ask me, what's he hoping to achieve? He'd do better to admit his player was in the wrong, regardless of whether he was trying to prevent the try being scored.

And this is why 8 point trys are not awarded unless the ball has been grounded,ive seen and im sure a lot of you have,players diving to score under no pressure at all and dropping the ball ( Sean Long did it more than once for Saints ),ok so it doesnt happen very often but until the ball has been put down you cant say 100% that the try has been scored.

Kirkstaller is right in what he says and Ganson was correct in the call he made on the field.

As for Potter,well yes players are entitled to atempt to stop the try,but however you look at it a closed fist has hit Tomlins in the face,intentional or not theres no defence,red card 100%

Oh, touching down you mean.

That's not a penalty offence, otherwise we'd be pulled up for it on most tries scored against us when Sam's trying to prevent the grounding (based on many a Wolf's assertation)

yep, a differential penalty,

Just watching it on TV, Ganson uses that exact phrase.

Someone asked Stuart Cummings about 8 point tries after the Wigan-Huddersfield (I think) match in 2007 asking if they were still in use. Leuluai basically tried to slide tackle the player as he was going over the line BEFORE the player put the ball down. Cummings confirmed that on that occasion a penalty could have been awarded after the conversion.
So therefore Ganson could have given Wigan an 8 point try after the foul on Sam Tomkins as Sam was in the act of diving for the line when he was hit.

I'll put this in the right thread now, A bottle of Glenlivet helped me post it in the wrong thread



Why does it matter if he was in the act of scoring a try or not? It was strike to the head with a clenched fist. If it happened on the half way line would we have been given a penalty, I would say yes. So why does it matter where on the pitch it happened or what he was doing. In the act of scoring has nothing to do with it, high shot = penalty.

can only touch down if balls in contact with the floor

The "subsequent" part is straighforward enough, it's the "period" part that is ambiguous. OK, as soon as the ball is touched down, anything after that becomes "subsequent", but for there to be a "period" it would have to refer to the whole action of touching it down...otherwise you'd have say "the instant during which the ball is touched down for a try".

A period, to me, clearly implies a longer process than just the instant the ball touches the floor - that instant would then define the end of the period.

Not bothering to read through 6 pages, but can I just post what I heard from Ganson over his link?

He told the VR *NOT* to award the try until Ganson gave the go-ahead, because "the player is still on the ground".
At that time, he was trying to sort out the fact that "His brother is trying to fight everyone, including me."



However, the VR *DID* award the try, so Ganson went with it.

From everything that was said at the time, plus what was said in the ref's changing room at half-time, I firmly believe that Ganson *wanted* to give a penalty try and would have instructed the VR to do so, had he been given the chance.

It was the fact that the VR jumped the gun by hitting the button so early that robbed us of the extra 2 points.

Exactly. It simply does not make sense for a rule to apply for the tiny instance of time the ball is actually touched down. It's common sense that the phrase "touching down" is what you do to ground the ball not just the actual grounding itself.

Like you posted above, putting the ball down is the act of scoring.....Tomkins was over the line in his dive if you watch again. So he was over the line putting the ball down so as you posted above should be an 8 point try.