Your argument implies Hayne was ordered to stay away from the Manly game.
Surely Kearney wasn't that bad a coach that he would tell a player not to turn up. He might have left it up to the player, but I can't imagine a former club and international captain would deny a player the right to come and watch his team mates if he chose to.
So Ratchy's argument is that if Hayne was given the option of not turning up, then he should have been there.
So Ratchy's argument assumes that Hayne was not told to stay home and have a rest (despite the strong suggestions that was the case).
He can't just base his whole argument on an unknown assumption when the evidence presented pointed more the other way. The opposite assumption undercuts his argument fairly severely.
Let's remember: he's NOT arguing so much about whether Hayne was told to stay home or not. He's saying Hayne isn't captaincy material, and the evidence that he bases this on is an unknown assumption that Hayne couldn't be bothered fronting up to a footy game when injured.
Funnily enough Hayne has OFTEN fronted up to games when injured. So the inference that the coach told him to stay home rings fairly true (based not only on the circumstantial evidence, but also on the history of the man). So Ratchy's argument now becomes that he values a player who disobeys the coach.
I'm simply asking him who that player is? (not that I'd want them as captain, just wondering where the logic of his argument takes him)
