comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 16 minutes ago
When I have more time, I'll find the comments and we can all laugh at how you're trying to re-write history.
Appreciate you've convinced yourself, but you're 100% wrong.
You're also spouting the same old nonsense about going down.
I've repeatedly explained to you... as soon as a player decides to fall over, the referee is then led to believe that the extent of the contact is greater than it was, which means they have an inaccurate perception of what happened.
That's cheating.
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When i have more time...ðŸ¤
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 6 minutes ago
I've repeatedly explained to you... as soon as a player decides to fall over, the referee is then led to believe that the extent of the contact is greater than it was, which means they have an inaccurate perception of what happened.
==========
But if the player doesn't go down the ref already has an inaccurate perception of what happened because they almost never give the foul if the player doesn't go down.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That doesn't make any sense.
How's it an inaccurate perception?
They've seen the incident and decided it's not a foul. You might disagree. Sometimes, I agree, staying on their feet makes the ref less inclined to give the foul.
That doesn't mean that what I've said above is wrong.
It's also laughable that the player going down is thinking to themselves 'I'd like to stay on my feet'. Most players will take any opportunity they can to go down, because they want the referee to give something.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
======
They know because they've been pros for years and have learnt from experience that going down works better than stayed on your feet when fouled. This could be the most simplistic and naive argument you've ever out forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they thought they were fouled but the ref disagreed, and that's justification for throwing yourself to the ground every time you think you've been fouled.
Gotcha.
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 16 minutes ago
When I have more time, I'll find the comments and we can all laugh at how you're trying to re-write history.
Appreciate you've convinced yourself, but you're 100% wrong.
You're also spouting the same old nonsense about going down.
I've repeatedly explained to you... as soon as a player decides to fall over, the referee is then led to believe that the extent of the contact is greater than it was, which means they have an inaccurate perception of what happened.
That's cheating.
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When i have more time...ðŸ¤
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, don't spend long on here these days.
They've seen the incident and decided it's not a foul
====
How do you know they've seen the incident? Or all of the incident even?
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 4 seconds ago
They've seen the incident and decided it's not a foul
====
How do you know they've seen the incident? Or all of the incident even?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Facking hell.
If they haven't seen it then falling over won't make a blind bit of difference.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
======
They know because they've been pros for years and have learnt from experience that going down works better than stayed on your feet when fouled. This could be the most simplistic and naive argument you've ever out forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they thought they were fouled but the ref disagreed, and that's justification for throwing yourself to the ground every time you think you've been fouled.
Gotcha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You asking my own view? Personally I obviously don't approve of it but it obviously works as has been explained to you otherwise players wouldn't keep doing it constantly and without fail, would they?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 4 seconds ago
They've seen the incident and decided it's not a foul
====
How do you know they've seen the incident? Or all of the incident even?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Facking hell.
If they haven't seen it then falling over won't make a blind bit of difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funnily enough it still makes a difference, another naive point if view tbh. I don't know what planet you're living on.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
======
They know because they've been pros for years and have learnt from experience that going down works better than stayed on your feet when fouled. This could be the most simplistic and naive argument you've ever out forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they thought they were fouled but the ref disagreed, and that's justification for throwing yourself to the ground every time you think you've been fouled.
Gotcha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You asking my own view? Personally I obviously don't approve of it but it obviously works as has been explained to you otherwise players wouldn't keep doing it constantly and without fail, would they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't agree then great, we're on the same page.
It's blatant cheating.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 4 seconds ago
They've seen the incident and decided it's not a foul
====
How do you know they've seen the incident? Or all of the incident even?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Facking hell.
If they haven't seen it then falling over won't make a blind bit of difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funnily enough it still makes a difference, another naive point if view tbh. I don't know what planet you're living on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn't.
If the referee doesn't see the incident then obviously they can't give a foul.
"I've repeatedly explained to you... as soon as a player decides to fall over, the referee is then led to believe that the extent of the contact is greater than it was, which means they have an inaccurate perception of what happened.
That's cheating."
no it doesnt .... the ref will still make his mind up as to whether or not the contact was enough to affect him. what a stupid thing to say.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
======
They know because they've been pros for years and have learnt from experience that going down works better than stayed on your feet when fouled. This could be the most simplistic and naive argument you've ever out forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they thought they were fouled but the ref disagreed, and that's justification for throwing yourself to the ground every time you think you've been fouled.
Gotcha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You asking my own view? Personally I obviously don't approve of it but it obviously works as has been explained to you otherwise players wouldn't keep doing it constantly and without fail, would they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't agree then great, we're on the same page.
It's blatant cheating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
every single player in the game has cheated... iv never seen a single pro player who isnt a cheat. cheating is part of the game
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 4 seconds ago
They've seen the incident and decided it's not a foul
====
How do you know they've seen the incident? Or all of the incident even?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Facking hell.
If they haven't seen it then falling over won't make a blind bit of difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funnily enough it still makes a difference, another naive point if view tbh. I don't know what planet you're living on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn't.
If the referee doesn't see the incident then obviously they can't give a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet they do it all the time
Remember a few years back one of them was accidentally caught on audio telling his mates he hadn't a fecking clue what had happened but was giving the penalty anyway.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
======
They know because they've been pros for years and have learnt from experience that going down works better than stayed on your feet when fouled. This could be the most simplistic and naive argument you've ever out forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they thought they were fouled but the ref disagreed, and that's justification for throwing yourself to the ground every time you think you've been fouled.
Gotcha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You asking my own view? Personally I obviously don't approve of it but it obviously works as has been explained to you otherwise players wouldn't keep doing it constantly and without fail, would they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't agree then great, we're on the same page.
It's blatant cheating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
every single player in the game has cheated... iv never seen a single pro player who isnt a cheat. cheating is part of the game
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never said otherwise.
You are too stupid to debate with, so I won't be replying to you again.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 4 seconds ago
They've seen the incident and decided it's not a foul
====
How do you know they've seen the incident? Or all of the incident even?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Facking hell.
If they haven't seen it then falling over won't make a blind bit of difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funnily enough it still makes a difference, another naive point if view tbh. I don't know what planet you're living on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn't.
If the referee doesn't see the incident then obviously they can't give a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet they do it all the time
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
That's utter nonsense.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 24 seconds ago
Remember a few years back one of them was accidentally caught on audio telling his mates he hadn't a fecking clue what had happened but was giving the penalty anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I'm sure there are a handful of occasions of it happening, yes.
That's not really the point.
Generally a referee won't give a decision for an incident that they haven't seen. Obviously.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 20 seconds ago
You must be an alien.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right back at you.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
======
They know because they've been pros for years and have learnt from experience that going down works better than stayed on your feet when fouled. This could be the most simplistic and naive argument you've ever out forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they thought they were fouled but the ref disagreed, and that's justification for throwing yourself to the ground every time you think you've been fouled.
Gotcha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You asking my own view? Personally I obviously don't approve of it but it obviously works as has been explained to you otherwise players wouldn't keep doing it constantly and without fail, would they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't agree then great, we're on the same page.
It's blatant cheating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
every single player in the game has cheated... iv never seen a single pro player who isnt a cheat. cheating is part of the game
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never said otherwise.
You are too stupid to debate with, so I won't be replying to you again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes im sure 99% of this thread are wrong and you are the one thats correct ! thats usually how it goes
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
======
They know because they've been pros for years and have learnt from experience that going down works better than stayed on your feet when fouled. This could be the most simplistic and naive argument you've ever out forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they thought they were fouled but the ref disagreed, and that's justification for throwing yourself to the ground every time you think you've been fouled.
Gotcha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You asking my own view? Personally I obviously don't approve of it but it obviously works as has been explained to you otherwise players wouldn't keep doing it constantly and without fail, would they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't agree then great, we're on the same page.
It's blatant cheating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
every single player in the game has cheated... iv never seen a single pro player who isnt a cheat. cheating is part of the game
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never said otherwise.
You are too stupid to debate with, so I won't be replying to you again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes im sure 99% of this thread are wrong and you are the one thats correct ! thats usually how it goes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
also its only blatant cheating if he wasnt fouled, plenty of players that have been fouled will still fall over to emphasise the foul, thats not cheating. there is no rule that says you must stay on your feet.
when you are pushed you can sometimes make an active decision to use strength to stay on your feet or not resist it and fall over.
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 14 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 16 minutes ago
When I have more time, I'll find the comments and we can all laugh at how you're trying to re-write history.
Appreciate you've convinced yourself, but you're 100% wrong.
You're also spouting the same old nonsense about going down.
I've repeatedly explained to you... as soon as a player decides to fall over, the referee is then led to believe that the extent of the contact is greater than it was, which means they have an inaccurate perception of what happened.
That's cheating.
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When i have more time...ðŸ¤
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unbelievable. Tells me what I meant on a previous article, despite me repeating that isn't what I'm saying, I'm saying something else. Comes on a later article telling me I said something he made up and then decides when he gets the time(he never does as he's made this claim before) he's going to post this comment where I said something but he decided for me it meant something else.
You couldn't make it up.
TOOR on the forum at 3am letting it all out.
Had a beer, had you?
I’m not telling you what you meant. I’m telling you what you literally said. Just because you’ve convinced yourself otherwise in typical TOOR fashion to avoid admitting you’re wrong, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
That is a little sad I have to say....
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 47 minutes ago
TOOR on the forum at 3am letting it all out.
Had a beer, had you?
I’m not telling you what you meant. I’m telling you what you literally said. Just because you’ve convinced yourself otherwise in typical TOOR fashion to avoid admitting you’re wrong, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. You're telling me what I meant. I literally never said it. This is what you do, you tell people what they mean and then argue against it.
No beer unfortunately. Just a two year old who decided it was "up time" at 2am.
Sign in if you want to comment
Scrap VAR
Page 10 of 13
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 16 minutes ago
When I have more time, I'll find the comments and we can all laugh at how you're trying to re-write history.
Appreciate you've convinced yourself, but you're 100% wrong.
You're also spouting the same old nonsense about going down.
I've repeatedly explained to you... as soon as a player decides to fall over, the referee is then led to believe that the extent of the contact is greater than it was, which means they have an inaccurate perception of what happened.
That's cheating.
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When i have more time...ðŸ¤
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 6 minutes ago
I've repeatedly explained to you... as soon as a player decides to fall over, the referee is then led to believe that the extent of the contact is greater than it was, which means they have an inaccurate perception of what happened.
==========
But if the player doesn't go down the ref already has an inaccurate perception of what happened because they almost never give the foul if the player doesn't go down.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That doesn't make any sense.
How's it an inaccurate perception?
They've seen the incident and decided it's not a foul. You might disagree. Sometimes, I agree, staying on their feet makes the ref less inclined to give the foul.
That doesn't mean that what I've said above is wrong.
It's also laughable that the player going down is thinking to themselves 'I'd like to stay on my feet'. Most players will take any opportunity they can to go down, because they want the referee to give something.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
======
They know because they've been pros for years and have learnt from experience that going down works better than stayed on your feet when fouled. This could be the most simplistic and naive argument you've ever out forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they thought they were fouled but the ref disagreed, and that's justification for throwing yourself to the ground every time you think you've been fouled.
Gotcha.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 16 minutes ago
When I have more time, I'll find the comments and we can all laugh at how you're trying to re-write history.
Appreciate you've convinced yourself, but you're 100% wrong.
You're also spouting the same old nonsense about going down.
I've repeatedly explained to you... as soon as a player decides to fall over, the referee is then led to believe that the extent of the contact is greater than it was, which means they have an inaccurate perception of what happened.
That's cheating.
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When i have more time...ðŸ¤
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, don't spend long on here these days.
posted on 2/2/24
They've seen the incident and decided it's not a foul
====
How do you know they've seen the incident? Or all of the incident even?
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 4 seconds ago
They've seen the incident and decided it's not a foul
====
How do you know they've seen the incident? Or all of the incident even?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Facking hell.
If they haven't seen it then falling over won't make a blind bit of difference.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
======
They know because they've been pros for years and have learnt from experience that going down works better than stayed on your feet when fouled. This could be the most simplistic and naive argument you've ever out forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they thought they were fouled but the ref disagreed, and that's justification for throwing yourself to the ground every time you think you've been fouled.
Gotcha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You asking my own view? Personally I obviously don't approve of it but it obviously works as has been explained to you otherwise players wouldn't keep doing it constantly and without fail, would they?
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 4 seconds ago
They've seen the incident and decided it's not a foul
====
How do you know they've seen the incident? Or all of the incident even?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Facking hell.
If they haven't seen it then falling over won't make a blind bit of difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funnily enough it still makes a difference, another naive point if view tbh. I don't know what planet you're living on.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
======
They know because they've been pros for years and have learnt from experience that going down works better than stayed on your feet when fouled. This could be the most simplistic and naive argument you've ever out forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they thought they were fouled but the ref disagreed, and that's justification for throwing yourself to the ground every time you think you've been fouled.
Gotcha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You asking my own view? Personally I obviously don't approve of it but it obviously works as has been explained to you otherwise players wouldn't keep doing it constantly and without fail, would they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't agree then great, we're on the same page.
It's blatant cheating.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 4 seconds ago
They've seen the incident and decided it's not a foul
====
How do you know they've seen the incident? Or all of the incident even?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Facking hell.
If they haven't seen it then falling over won't make a blind bit of difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funnily enough it still makes a difference, another naive point if view tbh. I don't know what planet you're living on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn't.
If the referee doesn't see the incident then obviously they can't give a foul.
posted on 2/2/24
"I've repeatedly explained to you... as soon as a player decides to fall over, the referee is then led to believe that the extent of the contact is greater than it was, which means they have an inaccurate perception of what happened.
That's cheating."
no it doesnt .... the ref will still make his mind up as to whether or not the contact was enough to affect him. what a stupid thing to say.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
======
They know because they've been pros for years and have learnt from experience that going down works better than stayed on your feet when fouled. This could be the most simplistic and naive argument you've ever out forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they thought they were fouled but the ref disagreed, and that's justification for throwing yourself to the ground every time you think you've been fouled.
Gotcha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You asking my own view? Personally I obviously don't approve of it but it obviously works as has been explained to you otherwise players wouldn't keep doing it constantly and without fail, would they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't agree then great, we're on the same page.
It's blatant cheating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
every single player in the game has cheated... iv never seen a single pro player who isnt a cheat. cheating is part of the game
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 4 seconds ago
They've seen the incident and decided it's not a foul
====
How do you know they've seen the incident? Or all of the incident even?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Facking hell.
If they haven't seen it then falling over won't make a blind bit of difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funnily enough it still makes a difference, another naive point if view tbh. I don't know what planet you're living on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn't.
If the referee doesn't see the incident then obviously they can't give a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet they do it all the time
posted on 2/2/24
Remember a few years back one of them was accidentally caught on audio telling his mates he hadn't a fecking clue what had happened but was giving the penalty anyway.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
======
They know because they've been pros for years and have learnt from experience that going down works better than stayed on your feet when fouled. This could be the most simplistic and naive argument you've ever out forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they thought they were fouled but the ref disagreed, and that's justification for throwing yourself to the ground every time you think you've been fouled.
Gotcha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You asking my own view? Personally I obviously don't approve of it but it obviously works as has been explained to you otherwise players wouldn't keep doing it constantly and without fail, would they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't agree then great, we're on the same page.
It's blatant cheating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
every single player in the game has cheated... iv never seen a single pro player who isnt a cheat. cheating is part of the game
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never said otherwise.
You are too stupid to debate with, so I won't be replying to you again.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 4 seconds ago
They've seen the incident and decided it's not a foul
====
How do you know they've seen the incident? Or all of the incident even?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Facking hell.
If they haven't seen it then falling over won't make a blind bit of difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funnily enough it still makes a difference, another naive point if view tbh. I don't know what planet you're living on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn't.
If the referee doesn't see the incident then obviously they can't give a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet they do it all the time
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
That's utter nonsense.
posted on 2/2/24
You must be an alien.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 24 seconds ago
Remember a few years back one of them was accidentally caught on audio telling his mates he hadn't a fecking clue what had happened but was giving the penalty anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I'm sure there are a handful of occasions of it happening, yes.
That's not really the point.
Generally a referee won't give a decision for an incident that they haven't seen. Obviously.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 20 seconds ago
You must be an alien.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right back at you.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
======
They know because they've been pros for years and have learnt from experience that going down works better than stayed on your feet when fouled. This could be the most simplistic and naive argument you've ever out forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they thought they were fouled but the ref disagreed, and that's justification for throwing yourself to the ground every time you think you've been fouled.
Gotcha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You asking my own view? Personally I obviously don't approve of it but it obviously works as has been explained to you otherwise players wouldn't keep doing it constantly and without fail, would they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't agree then great, we're on the same page.
It's blatant cheating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
every single player in the game has cheated... iv never seen a single pro player who isnt a cheat. cheating is part of the game
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never said otherwise.
You are too stupid to debate with, so I won't be replying to you again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes im sure 99% of this thread are wrong and you are the one thats correct ! thats usually how it goes
posted on 2/2/24
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
======
They know because they've been pros for years and have learnt from experience that going down works better than stayed on your feet when fouled. This could be the most simplistic and naive argument you've ever out forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they thought they were fouled but the ref disagreed, and that's justification for throwing yourself to the ground every time you think you've been fouled.
Gotcha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You asking my own view? Personally I obviously don't approve of it but it obviously works as has been explained to you otherwise players wouldn't keep doing it constantly and without fail, would they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't agree then great, we're on the same page.
It's blatant cheating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
every single player in the game has cheated... iv never seen a single pro player who isnt a cheat. cheating is part of the game
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never said otherwise.
You are too stupid to debate with, so I won't be replying to you again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes im sure 99% of this thread are wrong and you are the one thats correct ! thats usually how it goes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
also its only blatant cheating if he wasnt fouled, plenty of players that have been fouled will still fall over to emphasise the foul, thats not cheating. there is no rule that says you must stay on your feet.
when you are pushed you can sometimes make an active decision to use strength to stay on your feet or not resist it and fall over.
posted on 3/2/24
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 14 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 16 minutes ago
When I have more time, I'll find the comments and we can all laugh at how you're trying to re-write history.
Appreciate you've convinced yourself, but you're 100% wrong.
You're also spouting the same old nonsense about going down.
I've repeatedly explained to you... as soon as a player decides to fall over, the referee is then led to believe that the extent of the contact is greater than it was, which means they have an inaccurate perception of what happened.
That's cheating.
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When i have more time...ðŸ¤
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unbelievable. Tells me what I meant on a previous article, despite me repeating that isn't what I'm saying, I'm saying something else. Comes on a later article telling me I said something he made up and then decides when he gets the time(he never does as he's made this claim before) he's going to post this comment where I said something but he decided for me it meant something else.
You couldn't make it up.
posted on 3/2/24
TOOR on the forum at 3am letting it all out.
Had a beer, had you?
I’m not telling you what you meant. I’m telling you what you literally said. Just because you’ve convinced yourself otherwise in typical TOOR fashion to avoid admitting you’re wrong, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
posted on 3/2/24
That is a little sad I have to say....
posted on 3/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 47 minutes ago
TOOR on the forum at 3am letting it all out.
Had a beer, had you?
I’m not telling you what you meant. I’m telling you what you literally said. Just because you’ve convinced yourself otherwise in typical TOOR fashion to avoid admitting you’re wrong, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. You're telling me what I meant. I literally never said it. This is what you do, you tell people what they mean and then argue against it.
No beer unfortunately. Just a two year old who decided it was "up time" at 2am.
Page 10 of 13
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13