He chose to "knock the ball out" with a closed fist. so if he got it wrong there was no option for the ref, If it was a slap with open hand it would have been a yellow at worst.

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.