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.

I couldn't agree more. To me it was a perfect example of when this law should be used.

Regarding foul play subsequent to the try being scored, is there still a rule that gives the team offended against, a penalty on the centre spot after taking the conversion? I know in my dim memory I have seen this but not sure if it was League or Union.

As for some people asking how a player can get a red card and no penalty awarded. It's simple, If there is say a high tackle 5m from the line but the player rides the shot, keeps running and scores then the advantage law comes into play. So no penalty but offending player is still carded. I have seen this where the try has been given out wide and conversion missed, therefore a penalty try would have been more appropriate, but can't be given under the existing laws.

The ball was grounded so it was a try. Raynor swung an arm into the face and received a red card for that offence, so that should be a penalty. No need to discuss 8 point tries, as that's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Also, Ganson indicated with the pointed hands signal that Pat was taking a penalty. In the Rugby 7's final last night a try was scored in the corner. A player steamrolled over the try scorer and the ref ruled it was a penalty offence, and the restart would be a penalty, after the conversion. That sounds logical, and would mean offences after the grounding can still be penalised.

Of course it's relevant. If a player is fouled "in the act of scoring", a penalty is awarded in front of the posts, and taken after the conversion (making up the 8 points if both kicks are successful).
The only argument is whether or not Sam was "in the act of scoring", and the officials decided he wasn't.

Is it allowed for you to give advantage for a high shot? Because if it is then I think thats what has been given if not it would have probably been a penalty try so I dont actually think theres any argument.

Isn't the 8 point try is what we should have got against Leeds in the Playoffs last year when it was stripped as it was put down?

Looking at the incident again, I'd say that Sam had crossed the line and was less than a second from touching the ball down.

You've got to admire the officials for the bravery of such a decision. It was completely wrong needless to say, but you've got admire them for standing by it.

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.