:lol:
You have no rebuttal of his logical argument so you post a photo of a crying baby as a response. You should write for The Courier Mail...
Originally Posted by
Nuffy
Part 1 re GI
Of greater significance is the fact that the NSWRL decided not to push the point on Inglis' eligibility after their Queensland counterparts convinced them that the future of Origin was at stake.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/l...712-2pvx3.html
Thats after 2 mins of searching.
This is Proof of something? Anything at all?
Hardly.....
Let's examine the crucial paragraphs of that article:
"Why did the NSWRL eventually let the matter go and allow Inglis to play for another state? There's a belief from Blues officials that Storm founder - and proud Queenslander - John Ribot had been in the young player's ear. In the years since Inglis made his debut in 2006, and after the Andrew Johns racism scandal in 2010, the player himself has said Queensland's predilection for indigenous players made him warm to the Maroons jumper. Of greater significance is the fact that the NSWRL decided not to push the point on Inglis' eligibility after their Queensland counterparts convinced them that the future of Origin was at stake."
The last sentence is interesting. An assertion is made, but there are no names attached to the participants of this exchange. If the said 'convincing' of the NSWRL by 'their QLD counterparts' actually occurred, then we should have the date, the place and the names of all those involved on both sides specified. Without that detail it is an assertion which appears to be quite vague. The rest of the article goes into painstaking detail about every aspect of Inglis' life in Bowraville, minutely tracing GI's friends, relatives, associates and his local Rugby League involvement. However, when we get to the accusation that the QRL 'convinced' the NSWRL suddenly the article veers away from fine verifiable detail to a vague assertion.
The next paragraph in that article:
"Those familiar with the situation say some of the Maroons heaviest hitters highlighted the fact NSW was beginning establishing a dynasty, having won three consecutive series with a fourth in 2006 looking most likely. At the time, the decision to release Inglis to Queensland was part of the big picture. As it stands, the Maroons are contemplating eight series wins in a row - with Inglis their most consistent performer."
Here again the previously rigorous investigation of Inglis' background degenerates into vague unverifiable assertions which cannot be regarded as references let alone proof.
'Those familiar with the situation'.
Who are the un-named participants? The situation is alleged to have occured. So tell us; How did it occur? What was the time-frame? Who are those familar with the situation? Who were "the Maroons heaviest hitters"? Why aren't the individuals involved given a chance to speak for themselves and detail what took place? This assertion's allegation strikes at the core of the one of the most contentious selections in recent Australian Rugby League history and involves the game's showpiece- State Of Origin - yet now the painstaking expose of Inglis' NSW roots suddenly deserts the 'dog after the bone'/ 'let's find the individuals who can tell us' approach and serves up nothing that can be investigated or verified.
Proof? Proof of nothing whatsoever.
