| |
Welcome to the NEW RLFANS.COM. After twenty-five years of service, the old site expired over the last few days. To maintain service we have had no option but to make an early switch to the new site which was in development/testing. Some elements of the new site are unfinished, such as; page numbering and quotations. We will fix these minor issues as soon as we can, please bear with us.
If you are having problems logging in, please try a different browser or platform, if problems persist then email support@rlfans.com
 |
| 
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 387 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jan 2008 | 17 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2012 | Mar 2012 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
some of you make me laugh on here calling raynor a thug yea ok it wasnt the best thing i have ever seen but tomkins deserves it sometimes and wigan used to employ some of the biggest thugs in rugby league at one time
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 5064 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Sep 2017 | Feb 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="TheElectricGlidingWarrior"The credit is yours, for managing to waffle for 14 pages with comments such as that without once discrediting my argument. Well done you.
 www.rlfans.com/images/smilies//c020.gif" alt="c020.gif" title="SUBMISSION" />'"
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.
|
|
Quote ="TheElectricGlidingWarrior"The credit is yours, for managing to waffle for 14 pages with comments such as that without once discrediting my argument. Well done you.
www.rlfans.com/images/smilies//c020.gif" alt="c020.gif" title="SUBMISSION" />'"
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.
| |
|
| | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1923 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2009 | 16 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2019 | Jan 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="SBR"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 Correct">down.'"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. />
Quote This makes no More">sense.'"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. />
Quote 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 Please">situation.'"Please learn the difference between past and present tense. You've been doing this all thread now and it's beyond tiring.
|
|
Quote ="SBR"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 Correct">down.'"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. />
Quote This makes no More">sense.'"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. />
Quote 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 Please">situation.'"Please learn the difference between past and present tense. You've been doing this all thread now and it's beyond tiring.
| |
|
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 7152 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jan 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Dec 2020 | Jun 2020 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="SBR"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.'" />
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.
|
|
Quote ="SBR"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.'" />
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.
| |
|
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 28357 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2024 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="TheElectricGlidingWarrior"One man. '"
Yes. />
Quote ="TheElectricGlidingWarrior"Out of interest, have you any other arguments besides an appeal to (a dubious) majority? '"
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. />
Quote ="TheElectricGlidingWarrior"face it, your argument is non existent. '"
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. />
Quote ="TheElectricGlidingWarrior"It amounts to nothing more than "I think this is what the RFL meant when they said that other thing."'" />
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. />
Quote ="TheElectricGlidingWarrior"....manaaging to waffle for 14 pages with comments such as that without once discrediting my argument. Well done you.
www.rlfans.com/images/smilies//c020.gif" alt="c020.gif" title="SUBMISSION" />'"
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. />
www.rlfans.com/images/smilies//icon_wave.gif" alt=" icon_wave.gif" title="WAVE" />
|
|
Quote ="TheElectricGlidingWarrior"One man. '"
Yes. />
Quote ="TheElectricGlidingWarrior"Out of interest, have you any other arguments besides an appeal to (a dubious) majority? '"
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. />
Quote ="TheElectricGlidingWarrior"face it, your argument is non existent. '"
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. />
Quote ="TheElectricGlidingWarrior"It amounts to nothing more than "I think this is what the RFL meant when they said that other thing."'" />
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. />
Quote ="TheElectricGlidingWarrior"....manaaging to waffle for 14 pages with comments such as that without once discrediting my argument. Well done you.
www.rlfans.com/images/smilies//c020.gif" alt="c020.gif" title="SUBMISSION" />'"
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. />
www.rlfans.com/images/smilies//icon_wave.gif" alt=" icon_wave.gif" title="WAVE" />
| |
|
| | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1923 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2009 | 16 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2019 | Jan 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"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.'" />
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.
Quote 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.'" />
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. />
Quote 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.'" />
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?
Quote You are not the best judge of whether your discredited argument has been discredited. But you are entitled to your opinion.'" />
But you haven't said anything that isn't "I'm right, you're wrong" wrapped up in waffle.
Quote 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.'" />
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.
Quote 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. />
www.rlfans.com/images/smilies//icon_wave.gif" alt="icon_wave.gif" title="WAVE" />'"
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.
|
|
Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"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.'" />
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.
Quote 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.'" />
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. />
Quote 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.'" />
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?
Quote You are not the best judge of whether your discredited argument has been discredited. But you are entitled to your opinion.'" />
But you haven't said anything that isn't "I'm right, you're wrong" wrapped up in waffle.
Quote 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.'" />
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.
Quote 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. />
www.rlfans.com/images/smilies//icon_wave.gif" alt="icon_wave.gif" title="WAVE" />'"
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.
| |
|
| | | |
| |
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
Copyright 1999 - 2025 RLFANS.COM
You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.
Please Support RLFANS.COM
|
|
| POSTS | ONLINE | REGISTRATIONS | RECORD |
|---|
| 19.67M | 519 | 80,283 | 14,103 |
| LOGIN HERE
or REGISTER for more features!.
When you register you get access to the live match scores, live match chat and you can post in the discussions on the forums.
|
|
|
