Foul committed as Tomkins is over the line, arms outstretched in the act of scoring. Video referee correctly advises illegal smash to the head. Ganson has no option to send Raynor off.

How the hell was that not given a penalty try, and thus a easy penalty under the sticks?

Whilst thankfully it made no difference to the final result, we were denied two points we should have got. Compare it to the penalty try given to Leeds against Bradford in Cardiff then that incident occurred a couple of metres out from the try line???????

Just think someone got that wrong!

Should have been an 8 point try, ie kick at goal after the conversion from under the sticks. No penalty try as the try was scored.

IIRC we had one free kick, and one penalty in the entire game, a new record low?

Sorry yes, that's what I mean. An extra penalty under the sticks. A total of 8 points not just the six.

Agree with this.

The Sin Bin did make me laugh. We were warned that the next offense would be a sin binning, then 10 minutes later Lima was binned for a seemingly random reason. His confused face is becoming a regular part of the season.

I could be completely wrong, but if a penalty try is awarded that doesn't mean the attacking team gets a penalty after the try does it? Only that the try is awarded as the player was prevented from scoring by an illegal challenge? Could the try have been scored and given as a try and not penalty try (as the ball wasn't dropped) and then a penalty awarded? I thought leeds got the penalty try against Bradford, but that didn't award them the extra penalty did it? I think the try being given (not a penalty try) was correct but that a penalty should have been awarded in front of the sticks also). It's likely I'm completely wrong with that, I just wasnt sure.

maybe its because Sam actually scored the try despite being knocked out? If he'd have had the ball dislodged and knocked on, maybe it would have been an 8 point try?

who knows

Should have been an 8 point try.

Think Ganson got that part of it wrong.

If he doesn't get it down, it's a penalty try, if he does it's an 8 point try. I think Ganson got it wrong.

As far as im aware an 8 point try can only be awarded if a player is fouled when the ball is down and the try is scored.

A sending off offence and no resulting penalty. I wonder if that has ever happened before ?

or in the act of scoring

No, an 8 point try can be awarded when the player is in the act of scoring a try, which Sam Tomkins was.

Then it was a mistake by ganson

From the rfl website.

Offence against Try scorer 9. If a player fouls an opponent who is touching down for a try, a penalty kick at goal shall be taken from in front of the goal posts after the attempt to convert the try. After his kick has been taken the ball shall be deemed dead and play shall be restarted from the halfway line. This law applies to the period during which the ball is touched down for a try and not to any subsequent period.

Its worded a bit ambiguosly and it could be interpreted differently by people but the key part is " This law applies to the period during which the ball is touched down for a try and not to any subsequent period."

Which to me means the ball has to be down first.Ganson is the type of ref who would give an 8 point try if the rules allowed it.

But he wasn't, was he?

Example of genuine cases would be a player sliding in on a player scoring a try.

How do you explain the sending off without a resulting free-kick then?

Furthermore, to answer the thread title a penalty try may have been awarded had Tomkins not scored the actual try.

Please don't confuse an 8 point try with a penalty try.

Because play had stopped following the try being scored.

It would be the same if Raynor had subsequently been dismissed for dissent whilst Richards had been taking the conversion. You wouldn't expect an extra penalty for that, would you?

Could be wrong but I don't think he was 5m out was he? Without watching it again I'd say he was a metre or two out? Could be wrong, but I'd say he couldn't have been much further than that, after all he was knocked out and still managed to put the ball down well over the line, surely meaning he was in the act of placing the ball down as he was hit? Is that much different from sliding in to score? That's a genuine question and would be interested to hear from someone who obviously has a better knowledge of the rules than me!

In that case I've got a 2ft penis.

Doesn't matter how far out he was, he wasn't in the act of scoring a try, which it what the rules demand if an 8 point try is to be awarded.

I've never seen an 8 point try be awarded when the player is not over the try line already.

Forgive me, I only saw the incident once (much like Ganson). He was definitely in the field of play.

Fair enough. but if diving to put the ball down isn't in the act of scoring a try, what is?

he was diving over the line so was in the act of scoring, I know the rules thanks

The laws state:

[iIf a player fouls an opponent who is touching down for a try, a penalty kick at goal shall be taken from in front of the goal posts after the attempt to convert the try. After his kick has been taken the ball shall be deemed dead and play shall be restarted from the halfway line. This law applies to the period during which the ball is touched down for a try and not to any subsequent period.[/i

The fact that Tomkins was (or wasn't) diving at the time is irrelevant. He was not touching down for a try by any means.