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.

Which is the same thing. The period during which the ball is touched down does not include the period before or after the ball is touched down.

I'm not getting sucked into this, but - surely if the intent of the law was to refer to the moment the ball is grounded ONLY, it would read something to that effect instead.


"The period" is the grey area here. And for me it refers to the moments during the act of scoring - and is essentially down to referee's discretion. If the player is in the act of grounding and is fouled; or indeed has grounded and is (for example) flopped on violently, the ref can choose to award an additional penalty. For me, the non-applicable "subsequent period" here refers to if they have scored, got up and it kicks off, for example.

[url=http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/rare-ruling-leads-to-eight-points-of-chaos/story-e6frexni-1225750695034This article[/url seems to feel the rule was introduced to prevent late hits on try scorers, which we still see in RU,and to be honest that makes the most sense. The SoO 8-pointer they talk about was for Thurston kicking Williams immediately after grounding. There's a poor quality clip on YouTube, or a [url=http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/rare-ruling-leads-to-eight-points-of-chaos/story-e6frexni-1225750695034pic here.[/url

However - Stuart Cummings says in [url=http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12934_2488531,00.htmlthis response to a question[/url that a Thomas Leuluai incident could have been an 8-pointer. I recall the incident and Leuluai slid in with his feet just as the ball was about to be grounded, as in, immediately prior to grounding.

Further, if you look up "Jamie Soward Kicks Greg Inglis instead of tackling" in the usual place, Jamie Soward kicks Inglis before he grounds the ball, and an 8-pointer is awarded. This is probably the most comparable to the Tomkins incident in that the ball still had a few feet to travel.

So it seems 8-pointers are awarded for a foul as the attacker is in the act of grounding; not just in the instant the ball is grounded.

By definition it does. It is a period, not a moment. You have mixed these up throughout this thread and are simply rehashing your other responses based on this failure to make a distinction between period and moment, and the erroneous belief that the RFL don't know the difference either.

If the period did not include any other timeframe than the moment the ball was touched down then it would be just that - a moment - and it therefore could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be defined as a "period", nor could it include an event which happens "during" it. In such a case it owuld be referred to as "when the ball is touched down" in order to the distinguish the moment from a period. Furthermore, the RFL would not have taken the time to exclude the time after the ball has been touched down if it went without saying that this time was excluded. And finally, since they do specifically exclude subsequent periods from the applicable period, it stands to reason that the antecedent period is not excluded since they do not exclude it. Ergo, we are talking about a period of time during which the ball is touched down, not the moment at which the ball is touched down. To argue that the law refers to a moment is to wish the law to be changed from what it currently is.

There's one man who thinks it means your version. That's you. But there was no eight pointer, and while credit to you for staying on your toes, like some Japanese octogenarian squaddie hiding in the jungles of Guadalcanal rather than surrender, but really, it is now just you.


Ergo? Did you say "ergo"?

One man. If you exclude everyone I agreed with on this thread. You know, like the post three above this one that you've somehow missed.

Oh, and the commentators and pundits on the day. Yep, one man. Out of interest, have you any other arguments besides an appeal to (a dubious) majority? You know, something with substance, like actually explaining how "period" means "moment" when used by the RFL? No? Has a quote materialised in which the RFL exclude the period antecedent to the moment the ball is grounded, a corollary of which is the quote which excludes "subsequent periods"? No? Then face it, your argument is non existent. It amounts to nothing more than "I think this is what the RFL meant when they said that other thing."


The credit is yours, for managing to waffle for 14 pages with comments such as that without once discrediting my argument. Well done you.

Concentrate on the word "period" if it was only at the immediate moment the ball is being grounded it would be called "as the ball is being grounded" surely?

Your argument seems to be that the period during which the ball is touched down includes some undefined period before the ball is touched down. Your logic for this is that because the law explicitly rules out the period after the ball is touched down it must implicitly include all the time before the ball is touched down. This makes no sense.

The law applies to a player who is touching the ball down. It applies only to the period during which he is touching the ball down. When Tomkins was fouled he was not touching the ball down. The foul did not occur in the subsequent period during which he touched the ball down. There is no way this law could apply to this situation.

Correct. Search the laws for the terms "when" and "period" to see that a) there is a difference, and b) the RFL are aware of it.

More sense, however, than a baseless assertion that I'm wrong. No explanation for why the RFL forgot to exclude the antecedent period? Still no explanation for why the word period, and indeed the English language in general operate differently when used by the RFL? Thought not.

Please learn the difference between past and present tense. You've been doing this all thread now and it's beyond tiring.

Have you looked at the "Jamie Soward Kicks Greg Inglis instead of tackling" try? Jamie Soward kicks Inglis well before he grounds the ball, and an 8-pointer is awarded. This is actually the most comparable to the Tomkins incident in that the ball still had a few feet to travel and a grounding was not certain. I've also quoted Cummings approving an 8-pointer for Thomas Leuluai incident where he goes in with his feet before the ball is grounded. There we have 2 incidences of 8-pointers awarded for fouls prior to grounding.

Conversely, I've also given examples of 8-pointers awarded for fouls after grounding - as the article I've quoted says, it is intended to prevent shots on try scorers.

It seems clear to me the 'period' is not the instant the ball is grounded, but is there to protect the exposed try-scorer from shots during the entire act of grounding.

If the rules referred only to the moment/instant of grounding, they would state so.

Yes.


I haven't made any appeals, not to a majority, not to a minority, not even a single appeal to a single person. But hey keep right on making things up.


As SBR has just set out the same point as mine I won't repeat it. It's not an argument, it's a fact. One you will never accept, but still.


Your weird claim that the RFL must have meant to include a period earlier than the stated period, because they didn't exclude it? Yep, that's exactly what your "argument" amounts to.


You are not the best judge of whether your discredited argument has been discredited. But you are entitled to your opinion.

And now, you have exceeded even my boredom threshold, which is much higher than the average. Worse, you have let your Mr Reasonable facade slip, and resorted to head-patting sarcasm. This is no longer discussion, it's just juvenile. So I will let you pleasure yourself in private congratulation, since clearly, you've awarded yourself teacher's gold star, and whatever arguments are presented, you've no inclination to read or understand them.

I know you will still not be able to resist having the last word, no doubt in either the same puerile vein, or else more atronising self-congratulation, so knock yourself out.

Sigh. You are mistaken. I was referring to your [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_majority_fallacyargumentum ad populum[/url, a logical fallacy also known as "appeal to majority" in which a proposition is claimed to be true because many people believe in it.


If it was a fact you would be able to demonstrate its validity. Instead you just keep repeating "I'm right, you're wrong, I'm right, you're wrong..." I keep asking for answers to questions such as why period doesn't mean period in these circumstances, but have been given no answer. I've asked why you assume the RFL exclude something when it is patently clear they would explicitly exclude it if they meant to do so, but I've got no answer. You are simply repeating assertions without any argument. At least I'm giving explanations as to why "period" doesn't mean "moment", and why excluding "subsequent periods" doesn't equate to excluding "antecedent periods". All you can come back with is "Yes it does. Fact." Like that has any logical value.


Actually, since you are making the claim that they did exclude it, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they did. Ridiculing the argument that "they didn't exclude it because the exclusion isn't there in the text" is all well and good but it gets you nowhere besides suggesting your own argument is baseless. I mean, I keep [uasking[/u you for proof, for quotes, for just anything that substantiates [uyour[/u claim that they excluded it. As for my counter-argument that you say is "weird", I'd say it's pretty logical that if the RFL wished to exclude [u2[/u timeframes from the applicable period they would not write only [u1[/u exclusion into the text of the law. Without the 2nd exclusion your claim is merely an inference, a guess on your part, just like I said... well, about 10 pages ago. Have you come up with that evidence since way back then, or are you still waffling to distract from your non-argument?


But you haven't said anything that isn't "I'm right, you're wrong" wrapped up in waffle.


If you have an argument to present I'm more than willing to listen to it. I enjoy a good debate, but it's a little frustrating when someone simply insists they are right for 14 pages rather than presenting a logical and reasoned account of the validity of their position.


I'm sure you wouldn't really expect me not to defend myself against some of the charges yer 'onour, 'specially ones so personal and insulting as those you now throw along with your toys out the pram. Are you sure it isn't out of frustration that you now lower the tone, rather than boredom? It's a shame this enjoyable thread has descended into petty namecalling, and I shall bear in mind it is to this you resort when you fail to win an argument. But believe me, I respond to anybody in the name of discussion, not to have the last word. Whether you reply or not is nothing to do with me.