comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 4 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Give the 2 year old a beer. Problem solved.

comment by Michael Mellon (U1734)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 4 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Give the 2 year old a beer. Problem solved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She doesn't like beer, only whiskey.

I once brought black wine back from Georgia in a two litre Coke bottle. Her uncle owns vineyards and produces his own wine.

We got back from the park, eight year old son dying of thirst after we were playing football. Straight in, glass of 'Coke' nearly threw up

comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 hours, 13 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope, you said it.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think you’re lying. You’re just good at convincing yourself of things.

Thanks for thinking of me at 3am.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 hours, 13 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope, you said it.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think you’re lying. You’re just good at convincing yourself of things.

Thanks for thinking of me at 3am.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well when you get the time, stick up a wee quote there for me would you? Just when you get the time. Cheers 👍

I will, and then we can watch you squirm. At 3am.

Just here to bookmark for when Winston finds the time to prove TOOR wrong.

Couple of quick searches have thrown up some funny old threads, and a reminder of just how much of a blind spot TOOR has on this.

To be fair, others too.

It’s so weird that he doesn’t understand that throwing yourself on the floor completely distorts the incident to the referee, so it’s cheating.

Anyway, not seen the comment I’m looking for yet but this also proves my point quite well:

“players will continue to dive when fouled, why shouldn't they? Why should they be put at a disadvantage?”

This is TOOR clearly justifying diving. He’ll try and claim this means something else, of course.

So all that bluster for what I've already said?

“players will continue to dive when fouled, why shouldn't they? Why should they be put at a disadvantage?”

Players will go down when they think they've been fouled, otherwise they're put at a disadvantage as referees don't give decisions for players who stay up.

Yes the unfortunate consequence is that sometimes a player has felt he was fouled when he wasn't or has tried to buy a foul but that's we we have referees and then VAR to clear up the most important ones. However I much prefer that to players not getting fouls because they stayed on their feet. Defenders could then go around fouling players, just enough so they don't go down and get away with it. Would make for a very boring game.

Also that's not me trying to justify what I said, it's literally what I said. You can't tell me what I mean, as hard as you may try.

You’re so predictable.

I’ll find the others, don’t worry.

But that comment right there is saying you don’t see anything wrong with what they’re doing.

To claim then that you’re not saying they’re entitled to go down is laughable.

It’s also so funny that you position this as most players only going down when they think they’ve been fouled and some of them getting it wrong.

As if players are throwing themselves to the floor at any opportunity, to try and con the referee.

You’re utterly delusional.

As if players aren’t*

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 17 hours, 27 minutes ago
It’s also so funny that you position this as most players only going down when they think they’ve been fouled and some of them getting it wrong.

As if players are throwing themselves to the floor at any opportunity, to try and con the referee.

You’re utterly delusional.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't do that at all. In fact I clearly stated an unfortunate consequence of players having to go down when fouled to get the decision is they take advantage of that by going down even if they know they haven't been fouled.

You're doing it again. You're creating something which I didn't say and arguing against it.

There's a huge issue with that point TOOR, which we can debate, but before we do, let's just hammer this out.

When you say this:

“players will continue to dive when fouled, why shouldn't they? Why should they be put at a disadvantage?”

You are defending their right to dive. You're saying that you don't think it's wrong.

Can you at least admit that?

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 minutes ago
There's a huge issue with that point TOOR, which we can debate, but before we do, let's just hammer this out.

When you say this:

“players will continue to dive when fouled, why shouldn't they? Why should they be put at a disadvantage?”

You are defending their right to dive. You're saying that you don't think it's wrong.

Can you at least admit that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm...yes and no. I'm saying they should go down when fouled otherwise they won't get the decision. I'm completely against them going down when not fouled, like Jota against Newcastle for example.

I said you'd claimed people are entitled to throw themselves to the floor.

You told me I was lying.

The quote above says just that.

'Why shouldn't they'.

What you've just said has a fundamental flaw, but before I address that, I think you should accept the above - I don't see what other interpretation there is.

"You've said that a player can decide they have been fouled and fall over."

"No I didn't."

"I'm saying they should go down when fouled otherwise they won't get the decision."

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 26 minutes ago
"You've said that a player can decide they have been fouled and fall over."

"No I didn't."

"I'm saying they should go down when fouled otherwise they won't get the decision."


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes? Players can't decide if they're fouled. If a player is fouled, the player will go down, otherwise the foul isn't given. It's up to the referee to decide if the player was fouled.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 34 minutes ago
I said you'd claimed people are entitled to throw themselves to the floor.

You told me I was lying.

The quote above says just that.

'Why shouldn't they'.

What you've just said has a fundamental flaw, but before I address that, I think you should accept the above - I don't see what other interpretation there is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn't. The quote above asks why a player shouldn't go down when fouled? You've claimed I said players are entitled to go down. I didn't say they're entitled to go down. I said, and this is my opinion and I'm sure the opinion of most, they should go down if fouled. Otherwise they don't get the foul.

Well if the player has chosen to go down before the referee has made a decision, then they have decided they've been fouled.

"I'm saying they should go down when fouled otherwise they won't get the decision."

How else does this scenario work if the player hasn't come to the conclusion they've been fouled?

Jesus wept.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 seconds ago


Well if the player has chosen to go down before the referee has made a decision, then they have decided they've been fouled.

"I'm saying they should go down when fouled otherwise they won't get the decision."

How else does this scenario work if the player hasn't come to the conclusion they've been fouled?

Jesus wept.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they haven't. They have highlighted they've been fouled and then the referee makes the decision.

"They have highlighted they've been fouled"

And how do they they've been fouled?

Players will think they’ve been fouled by being on the receiving end of a challenge. Players may (or rather will and indeed should know the laws of game), however it isn’t their decision as to whether a foul is awarded or not.

If a player goes down while knowing that he hasn’t been unfairly challenged, then he is absolutely guilty of cheating. If he goes down because he thinks he has been unfairly challenged, then he is trying to influence the referee into making what he believes to be the correct decision.

No player is “entitled” to go down, but they may feel as though they are justified to go down. I don’t think TOOR is staying the former, I rather think he is trying to rationalise the latter. Feeling justified in going down is not the same as feeling entitled in my opinion. There is a difference between justified beliefs and entitled beliefs for example.

Happy to get into that, but I’d like him to answer my question first.

He’s boxed himself into a corner with his answers, on a certain point, although I doubt very much he’ll admit it.