The Andre de Waal High Kicks Theorem

[BrokenWing]

Hi DH, thanks for the detailed explanation.
My "possession obsession" stems from the fact that a team can apply Pressure all game long, but it can't score points (changing "score board equity") without the ball (infringement penalties, usually resulting from Pressure, result in Possession Recovery - a perfect example is the Springboks winning scrum penalties (recovering Possession), which they usually convert. Quite simply, you can't score if you don't have the ball.
As I said before, maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but to see a backline in attack with the ball in hand is a rugby joy to behold. If you compare the Boks vs All Blacks pre WC Friendly to the WC Final, the strategies were completely different - in the Friendly, the Boks played the ball wide, ran in tries and won by a record margin. In the WC Final, same old, same old, predictable high-kick strategy, where Possession is subject to the Theorem.

Applying pressure to win kickable penalties technically is scoring points without possession. Granted, you regain possession to kick the points but that's just splitting hairs.

It's not an amateur game anymore, people play to win and jobs are at stake so the low risk tactics are always going to prevail.

 

[Andre de Waal]

Applying pressure to win kickable penalties technically is scoring points without possession. Granted, you regain possession to kick the points but that's just splitting hairs.

It's not an amateur game anymore, people play to win and jobs are at stake so the low risk tactics are always going to prevail.

Acknowledeged. (More's the pity).

 

[dirty harry]

Hi DH, thanks for the detailed explanation.
My "possession obsession" stems from the fact that a team can apply Pressure all game long, but it can't score points (changing "score board equity") without the ball (infringement penalties, usually resulting from Pressure, result in Possession Recovery - a perfect example is the Springboks winning scrum penalties (recovering Possession), which they usually convert. Quite simply, you can't score if you don't have the ball.
As I said before, maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but to see a backline in attack with the ball in hand is a rugby joy to behold. If you compare the Boks vs All Blacks pre WC Friendly to the WC Final, the strategies were completely different - in the Friendly, the Boks played the ball wide, ran in tries and won by a record margin. In the WC Final, same old, same old, predictable high-kick strategy, where Possession is subject to the Theorem.

Once again you are wrong, SA have proved that scoring points without the ball is a lower risk higher reward tactic.

3 games won by 1 point, 2 of which the winning points were won at a defensive breakdown, that's the definition of scoring points and winning games without the ball. You could argue that technically the breakdown and defensive work turned the ball over, and receiving posession gave them an option to win the game, but we both know that's a bad faith argument.

That's same old same old won a RWC. Therefore the same old same old is a winning tactic.

Posession is currently the least important it's ever been, and I agree the sport as an entertainment business is dying because of it, but it doesnt make the theory accurate.

 

[RedruthRFC]

I can't believe that the thread has reached page 2 without anyone pointing out that this isn't a theorum. Underneath the theorum, some of the factors that can affect its validity are listed, demonstrating that it's not a theorum (i.e. it can't be proved to be axiomatically correct). It is a theory (albeit one that ignores relevant factors) that states the bleeding obvious. In order to be useful, the preamble would need to conclusively demonstrate that it is correct, which it completely fails to do.

 

[Andre de Waal]

Thanks. I deliberated for some time before posting this as a theorem, going so far as to discuss it with an actuary. A Mathematical Theory as defined, is based on a set of axioms and definitions, and consists of theorems and proofs. Furthermore, it is a mathematical model of an abstract structure that can be used to make predictions or discoveries. A theorem as defined, is a statement that has been proven to be true by logic, using facts and rules that were already known.
As regards the case in point:
In theory, if you kick the ball high, there is a 50% chance that you will retrieve it ("bleeding obvious").
My Theorem's Critical Success Factor, clearly stated in the Preamble, is Possession.
The Theorem QUANTIFIES Possession (Retrieval) Probability as a minimum of 50% after the action of modifying 100% Possession by kicking the ball high, and lists the factors (riders) that could further positively/negatively influence this Possession (Retrieval) Probability. Please advise is there are any further factors which I may have missed.

 

[dirty harry]

I can't believe that the thread has reached page 2 without anyone pointing out that this isn't a theorum. Underneath the theorum, some of the factors that can affect its validity are listed, demonstrating that it's not a theorum (i.e. it can't be proved to be axiomatically correct). It is a theory (albeit one that ignores relevant factors) that states the bleeding obvious. In order to be useful, the preamble would need to conclusively demonstrate that it is correct, which it completely fails to do.

Because noone cares, and are only interested in the content, not having a spirited debate on the definitions of terms...

Probably.