Top ten things Rugby owes to league

[mrpwnd]

But regardless, the whole point of a professional qualification is to assure people of competence - especially when being questioned.

You're not entirely wrong about that, but that's assuming the line of questioning is even slightly relevant to the 'professional qualification'. Last I checked, physics, geology and toe poking vs round the corner weren't taught in any law degree for any uni.

But my learned friend, it does qualify you to comprehend, be reasonable and logical, construct an arugment and critically analyse arguments.

You could have perfected all those qualities but it doesn't necessarily make your logic perfectly sound, you can keep living in your deluded little world that having some incredibly elite qualifications in law makes your logic the correct one.

You missed the point. I'm proud that I got to a top university and I resented having the skills learnt and the efforts I have gone through to get into this profession belittled and/or denied.

It's pretty obvious you began flaunting your degree to prove the point that your apparent qualifications allowed you to trump loudstrat's and EA's arguments.

You mention you didn't go into your 'profession' to be belittled or denied, but you've clearly gone into it so you can come here and be an arrogant, deluded and egotistical wanker about it, there must have been a bachelor of wank that I somehow didn't see in my high school days, because that's just about the only degree I'd believe you graduated from tbh.

 

[ANTiLAG]

You're not entirely wrong about that, but that's assuming the line of questioning is even slightly relevant to the 'professional qualification'. Last I checked, physics, geology and toe poking vs round the corner weren't taught in any law degree for any uni.

No they're not. The professional qualification is relevant to my being qualified that I am competent to reason critically, even when others are falsely asserting otherwise. By the way we weren't just arguing about deductive physics. There were inductive arguments going on, too. Did you miss that? Do you know the difference between inductive and deductive? The practice of law requires actually requires the use of both. The whole point of a law degree is not to teach law per se but to teach inductive and deductive reasoning applied to facts and law. Other professional qualifications focus on deductive reasoning far more primarily such as med, engineering etc. I

You could have perfected all those qualities but it doesn't necessarily make your logic perfectly sound,

if i perfected the qualities of reason? Yes that would make my logic perfectly sound. If I had all the knowledge and facts then the world of reasoning would then be deductive and binary. But noone can know everything hence we have inductive reasoning - the process is OBJECTIVE even if everyone's outcome is different but that is still often logically sound. But there is no "my" and "your" logic because logic is objective and true - except for Foulcault. "Subjective logic" is a mathematical representation about beliefs/inductive conclusions that are uncertain and essentially culminates everyones inductive outcome. In essence, it is just another objective process to measure subjectivity thus still inductive. People's inductive conclusions differ because it comes down to how much importance you weigh you apply to each fact. Ever wondered why the symbol of justice of the scales? That's why.

you can keep living in your deluded little world that having some incredibly elite qualifications in law makes your logic the correct one.

What? Do you even have any idea what you're talking about? For a science or math issue there is only DEDUCTIVE LOGIC aka "therefore" (0 or 1). For an art or maybe "stats" (often debated) issue there is only INDUCTIVE logic aka "Therefore possibly or probably"(0>x<1). Whichever logic applies to the context is the correct one which depends on whether the facts can be absolutely established and are thus true knowledge. I think you may be confusing knowledge with reasoning processes here. You shouldn't. They're distinct concepts. Mistake of fact (incorrect or ommitted knowledge) will happen from time to time but thats not the same as being illogical.

It's pretty obvious you began flaunting your degree to prove the point that your apparent qualifications allowed you to trump loudstrat's and EA's arguments.

Nah i trumped their arguments with critical reasoning and they repeatedly insulted me and questioned my intelligence and ability to reason/argue. I trumped that with my professional quals. I believe it started when I retorted something along the lines of 'reasoning and arguing is my occupation'.

You mention you didn't go into your 'profession' to be belittled or denied,

No what I said was "I'm proud that I got to a top university and I resented having the skills learnt and the efforts I have gone through to get into this profession belittled and/or denied."

Have you got reading difficulties? Because what you said and what I said mean two totally different things. I studied hard in order to get into the legal profession for intellectual stimulation and a chance at a better life than I was living previously.

but you've clearly gone into it so you can come here and be an arrogant, deluded and egotistical wanker about it,

Clearly? CLEARLY? I'm proud of my achievements but still humble in the scheme of things. My life is not perfect. I just think people who put themselves through the costs of study, the hours, of study, the financial and study stresses while trying to keep down jobs should not be ridiculed as "uni grads" who be told thay have wasted their time because apparently its okay to be illogical and just call people names instead of having a logical debate by those who have not studied.

there must have been a bachelor of wank that I somehow didn't see in my high school days, because that's just about the only degree I'd believe you graduated from tbh.

Yeah - high school doesn't give out degrees as far as I know. But the bachelor of 'wank' is commerce in particular accounting and finance - law is the bachelor of 'bullsh*t' or "whore school". Before my quals were apparent to you and now you don't believe me. Inconsistent. But have a read of how I churned up your medal buddy.

To non-critical thinkers; lawyers, academics (including scientists) and analysts often come across as arrogant assholes. That's just the way it is probably because non-critical thinkers do not like the errors in their thought exposed.

 

[ANTiLAG]

No, definately not.

He's a certain type, seen it 1,000 times. Everyone should hang on his every word because he's been to Uni. You can pick them within 30 seconds generally. They're fun to interview simply because they automatically believe that you have no choice but to employ them.

They forget that going to uni mean doesn't mean you don't have to earn respect when you get out.

This bloke is a prime example.

A certain type? Wtf would you be interviewing 1,000+ lawyers for? Even if your work needed in house counsel - why wouldn't a senior in-house-counsel, the owner or CEO conduct the interview? The retainer for your drink drive counsel doesn't count as you 'employing' him.

What is "definately"? Is that like definitely? Cannot be a typo - the letters are so far away from each other. Just joking - couldn't give a toss you spelt it wrong - I understood your gist.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Whatever you think is fine by me.

You haven't said yours by the way.

Let me guess why? :lol:

Errr the career I have chosen is law, as in lawyer, as in barrister and solicitor. Thought that was pretty well established by now.

Yeah.... that's actually a question you've been asked a few times.

I'll give your answer;

It was too hard to learn.

Yes - I have been asked that question. And I asked you your thoughts. I agree with your current position! That is a sound and logical answer. Good to see you're comming round to the light.


:lol:

You actually do think you're more intelligent and know more about the game than all the coaches of the eras that didn't use around the corner kickers.

Now where did I say that? The ONLY aspect of the game we have been discussing is round the corner kicking; and I most certainly never concluded that 80's coaches thought toe - poking was better. Thats your foolish conclusion. So do you know more about the game than coaches who employed round the corner kickers?

By the way - can you tell me who designed and holds the patent for the kicking tee was widely used in the NRL? Give you a clue - his surname is Halligan.

You didn't ask to my knowledge. Feel free to correct me.

For the third time; where are you seeing toe poking currently in use presently? Golden oldies or under 8's?

Maybe you could use a widgee board to help you find where you did?

I "definately" do not need one for that.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Funniest post ever.
Let me guess, you're a Podiatrist?
You should leave, now, for your own good. This is only going to get worse for you.

I churned out medal boy, mrpwnd and look forward to anyone else who attempts to fight your battles for you. For my own good? Am I in danger of losing e-cred? Mate - I enter into debates all the time on here just to enjoy myself and let go so that I may unwind. I love this sh!t.

 

[mrpwnd]

No they're not. The professional qualification is relevant to my being qualified that I am competent to reason critically, even when others are falsely asserting otherwise.

Why do you assume that your own critical analysis on various issues, or goal-kicking in this context is better, or even more correct than others? From what I've read throughout this entire thread every person that you've attempted to assert yourself to as an asshole has backed themselves up pretty well, you just keep repeating yourself because your simplistic, despite this complex persona that you try to maintain here. Get over yourself mate.

The whole point of a law degree is not to teach law per se but to teach inductive and deductive reasoning applied to facts and law. Other professional qualifications focus on deductive reasoning far more primarily such as med, engineering etc.

Read above, there could be a degree made specifically for all of the most perfect reasoning that you so love, doesn't mean you're right, I'm sorry your not the modern day Aristotle, I'll hand it to you, you do try to be something resembling an intellectual beings ass.

But noone can know everything hence we have inductive reasoning - the process is OBJECTIVE even if everyone's outcome is different but that is still often logically sound.

You've been equally subjective and objective as anyone else in here, again I'll re-iterate here, your reasoning is by no means more objective or correct than anyone you've tried to ass here.

But there is no "my" and "your" logic because logic is objective and true - except for Foulcault. "Subjective logic" is a mathematical representation about beliefs/inductive conclusions that are uncertain and essentially culminates everyones inductive outcome.

Try keeping it within context, that way you won't sound like a hypocritical brain dead tool, you boast of knowing the definition of logic, yet you fail to acknowledge the logic of others that have posted within logical boundaries. If anything you've proven to be fairly subjective in your anti-toe-poking campaign, just re-read every single rebuttal against your claims, I'm sure you'll find a lot of holes explained for you.

What? Do you even have any idea what you're talking about? For a science or math issue there is only DEDUCTIVE LOGIC aka "therefore" (0 or 1). For an art or maybe "stats" (often debated) issue there is only INDUCTIVE logic aka "Therefore possibly or probably"(0>x<1). Whichever logic applies to the context is the correct one which depends on whether the facts can be absolutely established and are thus true knowledge. I think you may be confusing knowledge with reasoning processes here. You shouldn't. They're distinct concepts. Mistake of fact (incorrect or ommitted knowledge) will happen from time to time but thats not the same as being illogical.

You know all this and yet your posts have been anything but deductive. Honestly, the way you argue is completely circular you force people to repeat themselves. You try to present yourself as an intellectual, which is fair enough, you explain all these long strung-out definitions of your self-glorified dreamworld and yet they somehow go on a tangent whenever you've brought up goal-kicking. Go figure.

Nah i trumped their arguments with critical reasoning and they repeatedly insulted me and questioned my intelligence and ability to reason/argue. I trumped that with my professional quals. I believe it started when I retorted something along the lines of 'reasoning and arguing is my occupation'.

No, all you did was repeat yourself and ignored everything that didn't agree with you, I pity them for having to repeat the same bloody thing 500 times only for you to continually look past it.

No what I said was "I'm proud that I got to a top university and I resented having the skills learnt and the efforts I have gone through to get into this profession belittled and/or denied."

Fair enough, misread on my part, point still stands - i.e. You're an arrogant wanker.

Yeah - high school doesn't give out degrees as far as I know. But the bachelor of 'wank' is commerce in particular accounting and finance - law is the bachelor of 'bullsh*t' or "whore school". Before my quals were apparent to you and now you don't believe me. Inconsistent. But have a read of how I churned up your medal buddy.

Err yeah, because year 12 students definitely don't consider university don't they? Dumbass, I guess you were so smart that you just skipped the HSC and Gilpin Faust acknowledged you as a youthful genius?

To non-critical thinkers; lawyers, academics (including scientists) and analysts often come across as arrogant assholes. That's just the way it is probably because non-critical thinkers do not like the errors in their thought exposed.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't, you're still a dickhead who can't see his own mistakes.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Why do you assume that your own critical analysis on various issues, or goal-kicking in this context is better, or even more correct than others?

Because mine is logical and stands up to critical analysis.

From what I've read throughout this entire thread every person that you've attempted to assert yourself to as an asshole has backed themselves up pretty well,

Errr- EA still hasn't answered many of my questions. He certainly is not 'backed' up well.

you just keep repeating yourself because your simplistic,

Keep it simple stupid. Any idiot can make things complex - takes intellect to make things simple.

despite this complex persona that you try to maintain here. Get over yourself mate.

Read above. KISS approach always.

Read above, there could be a degree made specifically for all of the most perfect reasoning that you so love, doesn't mean you're right, I'm sorry your not the modern day Aristotle, I'll hand it to you, you do try to be something resembling an intellectual beings ass.

Ahaha - no it doesn't mean I'm right - but if I've done it well and no mistake of facts then I can never be wrong.

You've been equally subjective

No. I havn't.

and objective as anyone else in here,

objectivity has been rather limited in here. Look to EA's ack Gibson debate ffs. And don't get me started on the "round the corner kicking at high accuracy is so easy people don't need coaching in it". He's been running from many of my questions and focussing on a spelling mistake and how he conducts interviews.

again I'll re-iterate here, your reasoning is by no means more objective or correct than anyone you've tried to ass here.

No fallacies in my arguments.

Try keeping it within context, that way you won't sound like a hypocritical brain dead tool, you boast of knowing the definition of logic, yet you fail to acknowledge the logic of others that have posted within logical boundaries.

I'm just pointing out their fallacies.

If anything you've proven to be fairly subjective in your anti-toe-poking campaign, just re-read every single rebuttal against your claims, I'm sure you'll find a lot of holes explained for you.

What the era claim? Round the corner is a foot kicking the ball. Tee's are irrelevant. Manicured grounds are irrelevant. Synthetic balls are irrelevant.
Any ball, any boot - round the corner is the superior technique. That is why round the corner was taking over before synthetic balls, tees, and grounds.

But where did the tee's come from? Who owns the patent on the most commonly used one? Who had syntehtic balls first?

You know all this and yet your posts have been anything but deductive. Honestly, the way you argue is completely circular you force people to repeat themselves.

What I argue is circular? Have you read my posts?

You try to present yourself as an intellectual, which is fair enough, you explain all these long strung-out definitions of your self-glorified dreamworld and yet they somehow go on a tangent whenever you've brought up goal-kicking. Go figure.

No seriously - have you read my posts?

No, all you did was repeat yourself and ignored everything that didn't agree with you, I pity them for having to repeat the same bloody thing 500 times only for you to continually look past it.

Who has been providing the facts, stats and data in this thread? Are you on the pipe actually not reading my posts?

Fair enough, misread on my part, point still stands - i.e. You're an arrogant wanker.
Err yeah, because year 12 students definitely don't consider university don't they? Dumbass, I guess you were so smart that you just skipped the HSC and Gilpin Faust acknowledged you as a youthful genius?

And the confirmation that you have not actually read my posts. As mentioned in this thread about 3 times already - I'm not in Australia. I did not goto school in Australia. I'm not Australian. So, there we have it - all your personal attacks fail because you clearly are a johnny come lately who has not actually engaged nor read my arguments. Go do your homework and come back when you know whats actually been said.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't, you're still a dickhead who can't see his own mistakes.

How about you make an argument for EA, put it in syllogistic form and we'll see how yours stands up. I've done mine repeatedly which you have actually not mentioned once on this thread.

So out of curiosity - are you 'toe poke' is better over distance or toe poking was better/as good as round the corner for accuracy in the 'era'. Or converts from union did not hasten the death of toe poking? or union converts did not raise the standards of goal kicking accuracy in the NSWRL. Instead of trying to get personal - make an argument. Show us your chops.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

A certain type?

Yep, did I stutter?

Wtf would you be interviewing 1,000+ lawyers for?

Where did I say I interviewed 1,000 lawyers?

Let's be honest, if you're a lawyer, you're a bad one. How many good ones have the time to spend 1/4 of their week on an online messageboard?

I'll have a go though..... you specialise in getting homeless people off trespassing charges?

Must be lucrative..

Even if your work needed in house counsel - why wouldn't a senior in-house-counsel, the owner or CEO conduct the interview?

Why would they?

Are you suggesting that only CEO's, owners or senior in-house-counsel should interview "professionally educated" people?

The retainer for your drink drive counsel doesn't count as you 'employing' him.

Doesn't it?

f**k me, I was going to claim that too...

What is "definately"? Is that like definitely?

Yeah, it is.

See, even a blind dog will occasionally find a bone.

Cannot be a typo - the letters are so far away from each other.

How far away from the letters o,u,i,j, and a are the letters w,i,d,g, and e?

Just joking - couldn't give a toss you spelt it wrong - I understood your gist.

Yeah you did, you've been hanging out for one. I f**k up all the time. Aren't you supposed to be observant?

Still, congratulations. Took some mighty good lawyering skills there champ. That "professional learning" you did came in mighty handy eh? :thumn

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

I churned out medal boy, mrpwnd and look forward to anyone else who attempts to fight your battles for you. For my own good? Am I in danger of losing e-cred? Mate - I enter into debates all the time on here just to enjoy myself and let go so that I may unwind. I love this sh!t.

Well, your ego won't allow you to stop so this is going to get quite painful. Either here where you'll end up going batsh*t loco or it will start to affect you offline..... Well, it'll affect you offline more than it is now.

You seem to think you're the only "professionally educated" person to come here and claim that their views, however ludicrous, are correct because they went to Uni.

You aren't.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

I churned out medal boy, mrpwnd and look forward to anyone else who attempts to fight your battles for you. For my own good? Am I in danger of losing e-cred? Mate - I enter into debates all the time on here just to enjoy myself and let go so that I may unwind. I love this sh!t.

I fight my own battles, if someone else wants to join in and slap you around a bit, that's your problem.

I don't think you actually realise what you're getting yourself into. But still, the end result will probably give me a laugh so it'll be worth the ride. This sh*t is already having a pretty fair effect on you.

It doesn't take a "professional education" to have powers of observation. ;-)

 

[ANTiLAG]

I love how you have failled to answer any of the questions on topic Everlast. You're like a dumb school bully who resorts to insults when asked simple questions he cannot answer.Whats that Australian comedy show with same actor playing several characters includiung the the school kid 'Jonah'? "F you miss..." Thats you!

Quite pathetic. But as for what is good for me... I am trained to be emotionally detatched from thought - so I doubt this could ever affect me negatively, on here or outside. As for me speding recreational time on here - I choose to. But then I have only post 1/30 of what you have on here in similar time frames.

I'm not a bad lawyer. My goal is to be one of the best commercial litigators around and I'm not off track thus far. As you say my ego is out of control thus if I could not be one of the best - I'd choose a game where I could be. But yet, here I am.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

I love how you have failled to answer any of the questions on topic Everlast.

You mean questions like;

Why weren't there around the corner kickers for 40 years even though we've established that it had already been "invented". Given that your attempted answer was a few rungs under pathetic... It was too hard to learn.. LOL

Or;

Where's the proof about the number of NZ Union coaches coaching in the NSWRL in the 1980's?

Or;

When you were asked to name all the kickers for one season, why did you only pick 4?

Or;

Why did you say that Parramatta only had one kicker during the Gibson era, when Graeme Atkins kicked while Cronin was injured?

Or;

Why did you put a cap of a minimum 50 kicks to "prove" your Kiwi Union kickers theory and then trashed Mick Cronin on the the 30 attempts he had in 1986.

Or;

When you were asked to prove your statement that Union kickers had it all over the Rugby League kickers for accuracy in the late 1970's/early 1980's.

Or;

When you were asked to provide the stats for all the Union converts?

Or;

When you asked the question; &#8220;Do you now admit that in the 90's goal kicking accuracy greatly increased as opposed to stats of the 80's?&#8221;

You replied to your own question by posting the goalkicking statistics for 1986, 1990, 2000 and 2010.

You're f**king loopy.

You're like a dumb school bully who resorts to insults when asked simple questions he cannot answer.

You actually began the insults, why are you having problems getting a few back?

Soft upbringing?

Did you go to school only with mutes who couldn't give you anything back so you never got used to it?

Must be Catholic...

Whats that Australian comedy show with same actor playing several characters includiung the the school kid 'Jonah'? "F you miss..." Thats you!

You're telling the story, I have no idea which show you're barking about.

I'm sure you have a sophisticated comedic taste even though the odd Monty Python reference seems to have missed you by the length of Conrod straight.

Quite pathetic.

Saying "f**k you Miss" is pathetic?

Noted.

f**k you Miss.

But as for what is good for me... I am trained to be emotionally detatched from thought &#8211;

Also physically&#8230;&#8230; judging by your posts.

so I doubt this could ever affect me negatively, on here or outside.

It&#8217;s a bit late to claim that&#8230;.

As for me speding recreational time on here - I choose to. But then I have only post 1/30 of what you have on here in similar time frames.

You must be on holidays at the moment.

I'm not a bad lawyer.

You could be a QC and I wouldn't give a rat's arse. But I tend to think you're more like Dennis Denuto than Lawrence Hammill.

My goal is to be one of the best commercial litigators around and I'm not off track thus far.

I&#8217;d say that you&#8217;re no chance of reaching your goals.

But reach high lttile man, you may as well fail by a lot as fail by a little.

As you say my ego is out of control thus if I could not be one of the best - I'd choose a game where I could be.

A life full of disappointment is a choice you&#8217;re making?

But yet, here I am.

What, on a Rugby League forum?

Uni wasn&#8217;t wasted on you&#8230;.

 

[Loudstrat]

Antiflog, if you seriously brought up our law degree to convince us that you are a highly develped critical thinker and therefore are right -

1) it says a lot about your conduct in this argument if you have to PROVE rather than EXEMPLIFY that, and

2) Lawyers are trained to argue, but not to give in until the judges gavel falls. The argument can be devoid of logic, it just has to convince the ruling party. You are not trained to reason - and from your responses that is f*cking obvious.

 

[Highway1]

Anyways, lets talk about what rugby union owes to league, like the thread suggests.

 

[ANTiLAG]

... Dbl post

 

[ANTiLAG]

You still havn't answered my questions. Running scared? I have asked you so many now; here are some key ones off the top of my head....


Where are you still seeing toe poking in league presently at high level? Under 8's or golden oldies? (Its a crap technique - thats why it is extinct.)

If, as you say, round the corner is so easy and does not need coaching- why does/did Halligan teach so many kickers how to goal kick?

Are you better kicking the oval ball than A Johns was? Or maybe you're better than J Thurston, B Goodwin, Michael Gordon, K Gidley, L Burt, D Carter and many more players who are coached by Halligan? If as you say round the corner kick coaching has no benefit as opposed to toe poke - are these clubs idiots to pay for coaching? Or have the things that make goal kicking easier to your mind (synthetic balls, grounds, tees) now necessitate the need for coaching? That would be very odd to say the least. Surely you still kick the synthetic ball in the same area, stand and run on the manicured ground and simply place the ball on the tee which is presumably easier than making a sand castle or a divot. You say its not 'rocket science' and these things make the process process easier. And yet - these players need and benefit from coaching. Maybe its the difficult technique that needs coaching.

If coaching of goalkicking is unnecessary to obtain maxmium advantage/benefit why did A Johns go from a 64% kicker to a consistently 80% kicker for the next 5 seasons when coached by Halligan...?

Is not a 16%+ percent increase in accuracy an advantage?

if not - why not?

Does the increase in accuracy under coaching not display the benefits of round the corner kicking coaching.

If a coach is needed to improve the task, is the task not one that is difficult to self master?

Why was round the corner gaining ascendency during the 'era'/period of leather balls and before kicking tees?

Why were the union converts so much better on average than the other cumulative average of other goal kickers from the 90's era - (Botica, Crossan, Ridge, Halligan and Schuster average 78.2% for every NRL kick they took combined).

If union converts have not improved goal kicking accuracy - why do most clubs employ Halligan as a goal kicking coach? Or Botica for that matter?


If tee's, as you say, negate the union converts role in hastening the end - can you explain why then why most kickers use a unon convert Daryl Halligan designed and patented kicking tee?

If tees, as you say, make goal kicking easier and accurate and if Jack Gibsons was the lead innovator and would have implemented any advantage to secure benefit- why did he not implement the kicking tee?

If union had no role to play can you explain how this is so when union introduced and made tee's compulsory (players at that time preferred sand and were forced to adapt) when sand was the norm in the nswrl? Union did this to save time taken for kicks and were not concerned at the intial reduction in accuracy for goal kickers.

Can you explain why union had the synthetic ball first?

Can you explain why goal kicking was so inaccurate in the NSWRL in the 1980's and start of 1990's but so accurate today without unions influence?

Tee's - no. Union convert Halligan was the driving force behind those first being used, and his tee is still widely used today.

Synthetic balls? No - Union had those first, but were kicking mightily fine round the corner before that with leather. A Johns could spend a year kicking at a lowly 60% with synthetic balls and dramatically rise the next year with coaching - hmmm maybe we've found something....

Grounds? Well it doesn't take a lot of balance to kick a ball and not fall over. And when Ridge when he converted was far superior on the same grounds with a leather ball.

Can you explain why below average players like Crossan or Schuster were signed if not for goal kicking? If you agree they are below average, why would NSWRL need to sign union converts to goal kick?

Can you explain why Halligan states he was signed as a goal kicker not a player?

Can you explain why you think synthetic balls, tees and manicured grounds make it era contextual round the corner vs toe poking?

Surely, its a matter of physics that round the corner will give increased accuracy over toe poking. There is a bigger surface area thus less chance to miskick and like a bigger golf club face - more forgiving to error. Era is irrelevant to that. The supposed 'improvements' - grounds, the union designed kicking tees, the union inspired synthetic ball would be there for the toe pokers, too. That leaves technique. Now you COULD say those improvements gave MORE benefit to the round the corner kicker than the toe poker (throwing you a bone to help you) - but how? Explain how this is remotely possible? Both techniqures require the kicker to run along on the ground, both require that the ball be placed ready to be kicked. In both techniques the ball flies through the air. (now you could say the synthetic ball goes further than the leather ball did when wet but then why did the change to synthetic not have a noticable impact on the improvements of kickers who used both balls (eg compare 1990 and say 1991 or give a couple of years to adjust so 1993) to todays levels? And why was goal kicking accuracy still improving from 2000 to 2010? Why will accuracy presumably still climb?

Thus ITS NOT the equipment. Its the technique. That's why union went to round the corner in the mid/late 70's. NSWRL lagged behind in technique and training. The union converts brought a far more superior exhibition of goal kicking consistently. Then coached others how to do it and the people who use this technique today at teh top level invariably have a kicking coach. The most common kicking coach for top level is Halligan.

Ridge belted around the leather ball without tee's in 1990 and caused more union goal kickers to be signed. Halligan admits in those interviews I linked earlier that he was signed as a goal kicker first not a winger. Union's accuracy already in the 1980's (with leather balls, shoddy grounds, and grass divots) was way ahead. As shown by the fact he was not even the kicker for any of his union teams.

John Gray? Well after he retired people were still toe poking. After Halligan retired noone was. Different equipment? You mean union insired and designed equipment such as synthetic balls (inspired) and tees (designed)? They had 'em both first. League came lagging.

Now John Gray and Willie Horne did not make a lasting difference. I think it plain for all to see judging by the amount of coaching and equipment designed that Daryl Halligan has done more for goal kicking accuracy improvement in Australian rugby and league than anyone or anything else. He's a union convert btw. He was signed for his goal kicking following Ridge's success. By his own admission in those article's I gave links for he stated in an interview that he was a goal kicker - nothing else.(its in the A Johns one).

Union had round the corner goal kicking widespread first. Their toepoking became extinct 10-15 years before the NSWRL's/ARl was. They had the tee's first. The synthetic ball first. It is a union convert who has developed the 'supertee' that most use. It is these union converts Halligan and Botica who have taught the players on tee's and with synthetic balls how to goalkick better.

You are wrong because;

1 Union/Union converts have irrefutably improved league goal kicking accuracy. So even if tee's and ball changes caused the shift to round the corner it is Union converts that coach that technique and supply the tees en masse. A Johns 60-80% under Halligan. Arguably, union gave the inspiration to the synthetic ball.

2 Round the corner kicking will give greater accuracy in any era due to the physics of a greater surface area of boot kicking the ball thus far far far reduced less chance to miskick the ball.

3 The equipment has done far less, if anything, than the technique for improving accuracy due to reasons as above, - but EVEN IF IT DOES HAVE SIGNIFICANCE to do with improved accuracy - the tees came from union and have been redesigned and widely implemented by a union convert.

THEREFORE, union and union converts have had major influences in improving goal kicking accuracy in the NRL.

I'd love for you to explain to me why you say why round the corner goal kicking coaches are of no benefit because Jack Gibson did not have one, because L Burt, K Gidley, B Goodwin, H El Masri, A Johns, M Gordon, J Thurston could have saved or save a fortune on Halligan's fee. You&#8217;d also have to explain why their success rates climbed under him (and often drop without him).

If toe poking was better in the yesterday era I'd love for you to explain why Gray and Ridge did so well? Anamolies - not as far as the union evidence shows where all were kicking round the corner. Why is toe poking extinct at all top levels now?

You need to give a reason why toe poking was better without manicured grounds, tees and synthetic balls - but even then your conclusions about goal kicking coaching being unnecessary to secure an advantage are wrong or all todays coaches are bonkers. If tees are a significant factor, then your conclusion that league has not benefitted from union converts is wrong. Your best bet is to go with the ball - but union had that ball first - league copied - so that's wrong. Notwithstanding that - the synthetic ball retains less water than leather ball when wet, but this is of little significance because long range penalties are still not common place in league and there was is marked improvement between 1991 (syntehtic introduced) to today's levels - thus the dramatic improvement cannot be the syntehtic ball because league kickers were kicking pies in 91,92, and 93. Even between 2000 and 2010 there has been marked improvement. So, not the synthetic ball on either account. Your conclusion that Jack Gibson was right to think goal kickers coaches were unnecessary to obtain every advantage and round the corner is an easy technique is implausible as almost every club and great kickers have them now and improved under them.

You are wrong on so many levels. In so many places. But you can try n cut this up - add some irrelevant material and try for lame insults of me. Try for some ad hominem.

The 1990&#8217;s Kiwi union converts have definitely improved goal kicking standards, first by other clubs copying, then by their coaching and if, as you say tee&#8217;s are a significant factor, then by designing and supplying said equipment. Your whole &#8211; if coaching round the corner was needed Jack would have had one does not stand up. Never will. Ridiculous argument.

It&#8217;s the coaching of the technique by union converts that has significantly improved the accuracy. Knowledge dissemination. League brought in some useful guys from union, such as Botica and Halligan, who have shared the knowledge post career. They did the same with Hewson in the 1990's as copycatting does matter. Coaching does matter. The union converts had mastered their trade with both leather and synthetic balls. Made sfa difference to them what they kicked. But rest assured, teams knew they were at a serious disadvantage with a toe poker kicker by mid/late 1990's thus it bcame extinct.

I'm glad you are so interested in how I perform in my career. Whats yours? Still not saying?

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

Antiflog..you could bore an advanced Alzeimhers sufferer to death.

 

[Loudstrat]

***yawn***

 

[ANTiLAG]

Antiflog, if you seriously brought up our law degree to convince us that you are a highly develped critical thinker and therefore are right -

1) it says a lot about your conduct in this argument if you have to PROVE rather than EXEMPLIFY that, and

Yeah - to me it says I'm used to dealing with reasonable people.

2) Lawyers are trained to argue, but not to give in until the judges gavel falls. The argument can be devoid of logic, it just has to convince the ruling party. You are not trained to reason - and from your responses that is f*cking obvious.

If it is f*ing obvious, you probably thus agree with EA. Therefore, you may answer my questions addressed to him, for him, if you like.

In Bold - same thing egg. Legal argument is fundamentally no different in reasoning to an 'academic' or any intellectual argument, its just often far more complex and has a set out procedure. Ask 'your bloke'. If one word epitomised the common law, it is REASONABLE. The reasonable person, reasonable expectations, what is 'fair, just and reasonable'. The argument submitted to the judge cannot be devoid of logical reason. Only person who can ignore logic is the judge. This is most often seen in 'hard cases' where logical application of the law gives an unfair outcome. The logical reason this is done to avoid an perceived 'unfair' outcome where the current law does not provide a fair, just and reasonable outcome. It all comes down to reasoned argument submitted to the judge to sway him/her. The judgment in those cases is really one on its own facts. Maybe in criminal matters lawyers may try illogical arguments about facts on a jury but there would be a good reason for that strategy and that attempt is normally identified as illogical by opposing counsel. But juries can sometimes be 'unreasonable'. A legal argument has to be well reasoned, even if that reason is only what is a reasonable outcome on the facts.

Also, as said before, law is not my only qualification. I did an arts degree as well. I did Politics, Economics, and Philosophy - even a dash of history. I also have an I/T qualification. But nothing, in my experience, comes close to law for critical thinking. Back in my second year at law school there were two medical doctors studying - they really struggled with the inductive logic process. They are too used to deductive or black and white thinking. Law is unique - it requires the need to be skilled IN BOTH. The philosophy department may still think they are the pinnacle of critical thinking, which is in essence an appeal to the days of Aristotle as all modes came from originally from philosophy which was essentially just 'thinking'. But after many centuries and accumulated knowledge, the creation of math, science, and humanities specialisations has confined philosophy mostly to abstract things such as ethics - and even then, the practice of law is regulated by ethics, ethics is compulsory in most legal degrees (it was in mine) and as a result, legal practitioners are the most common people to be on ethics committee, even for hospital boards. Make no mistake - all the tools in the philosophers toolkit are in the lawyers toolkit - and possibly even one more.

A good lawyer is tenacious - but if the judge has got it wrong and you think your client has a strong case - you don't give up - you ignore that Judge's gavel and appeal to the Justices.

Now, with the greatest respect Loudstrat, please do not attempt to tell me about how/what I am trained/trained in or what I practice. I know far more about it than you do. But really - in bold - you've made a fool out of yourself

 

[ANTiLAG]

Which one of the Union clips you posted is a bloke kicking with a leather ball and no tee?

I'd look but I'm scared I might catch whatever you have...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWBZjWRGvvg

You mean questions like;

Why weren't there around the corner kickers for 40 years even though we've established that it had already been "invented". Given that your attempted answer was a few rungs under pathetic... It was too hard to learn.. LOL

So why have A Johns, J Thurston, L Burt, A Roberts, P Richards, C Smith, M Gordon, H El Masri, B Goodwin, K Gidley, J Maloney, M Witt, C Fitzgibbon, B Goodwin, M Orford, L Covelland others required the services of union converts to teach them how to kick round the corner better. If round the corner was easy to learn and master &#8211; they wouldn&#8217;t need coaching to perfect their art.

Hell these days they've got tees and synthetic balls now - shouldn't need coaching at all. And yet - a takent like A Johns can go from 64% to conisistently 80% with Halligans coaching. But Jack Gibson did not have a round the corner kicking coach so there must be no advantage to it because he was innovative and perfect according to you. Perfect because "if there was an advantage to it he would have implemented it". And yet coached round the corner kickers can hit the 80% mark when only hitting the 60's with tees and synthetic balls. Kinda displaces how important the tees and the balls are to me.

Or;

Where's the proof about the number of NZ Union coaches coaching in the NSWRL in the 1980's?

I never intentionally said anything about the 80&#8217;s. I was talking about the 90&#8217;s. You mean Hewson et al? Google is a bit limited to finding trivial information for the 90's as newspapers were not commonly online then. But in 00&#8217;s Halligan and Botica still coach &#8211; something you have also chosen to ignore.

Or;

When you were asked to name all the kickers for one season, why did you only pick 4?

Time. I had better things to do than list everyone so I listed the top 4.

Or;

Why did you say that Parramatta only had one kicker during the Gibson era, when Graeme Atkins kicked while Cronin was injured?

Did I say they only had one kicker? I was referring to Cronin because he was their primary and #1 kicker, as in when he was on the field he kicked the goals, and as Loudstrat said - was a 'great' toepoker. Really, you&#8217;re splitting hairs at best here even if I did say 'only one kicker'. It adds nothing to your belief at all as it has no relevance to the issues. Can you not see that?

Or;

Why did you put a cap of a minimum 50 kicks to "prove" your Kiwi Union kickers theory and then trashed Mick Cronin on the the 30 attempts he had in 1986.

I answered this already. 50 was an arbitrary number - the same way cricket stats lists oten have a minimum of 20 innings, or a 1000 runs.

But because you want links for &#8220;proof&#8217; of everything when subsequently referring to Cronin, stats.rleague.com only carry stats from 1986 when Cronin only kicked 30 odd attempts.

Or;

When you were asked to prove your statement that Union kickers had it all over the Rugby League kickers for accuracy in the late 1970's/early 1980's.

Prove my statement? That is possible but would take a massive investment in time to get the required data. Union had round the corner already and were kicking well above 70%. League was nowhere near this number in the late 80&#8217;s even. Never watched a top level union game and watched people miss from under the black dot. Seen many toe hackers do it in league all the time. Loudstrat even said Cronin was guilty of that 'often'.

But I think Bob Dwyer explains why round the corner is more accurate well in that article discussed previously, and round the corner was widespread in union in the late 70's and early 80's but not so in League.

Or;

When you were asked to provide the stats for all the Union converts?

I did that in post #203. Clearly you do not read. Is this a reference to O&#8217;Connor because he is not a early 90's Kiwi Union convert. But I listed the stats and displayed the sums for Ridge, Halligan, Corssan, Botica and Schuster. It came to 78.2%

But again, Halligan 855/1078 + Ridge 580/723 + Schuster 101/141 + Crossan 140/199 + Botica 19/26 = 1695/2167 = 78.2%

Or;

When you asked the question; &#8220;Do you now admit that in the 90's goal kicking accuracy greatly increased as opposed to stats of the 80's?&#8221; You replied to your own question by posting the goalkicking statistics for 1986, 1990, 2000 and 2010.

You're f**king loopy.

So you&#8217;re complaining I gave you too much information? Give me a break.

1986 shows what it was like in the mid 80&#8217;s and also chosen because it was the first years stats.rleague.com kept records. 1990 shows you what kicking was like when the 80&#8217;s decade concluded. 2000 displays what goal kicking was like when the 90&#8217;s were concluded.
Oh maybe you don't know in which years the decade ends? Decades always end in the year with an 0.

2010 was to show the continued increase in goal kicking percentage&#8217;s even though the synthetic ball and tees were available in 2000 as opposed to 1990. Thus to displace the over use of this tee and synthetic ball argument you raise. Did you not get that? Guess I had to spell it out for you. Remember, I put it down to a whopping increase of coaching and knowledge dissemination and not so much tee's and defintely not synthetic balls and 2000 to 2010 displays this well. But you seem think round the corner is easy and no coaching is required for it to improve. If it shows that the tee&#8217;s have gotten superior &#8211; well they&#8217;re designed and distributed by a union convert coach anyway &#8211; so assists my primary argument and shoots yours in the foot anyway &#8220;Mr Union/Union Converts has/have not done anything to increase goal kicking accuracy. Personally I think it&#8217;s the coaching more so and that is why 2010 is there.

I have answered all your questions. Now answer mine.