Which certain point has he boxed himself into a corner on?
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 13 minutes ago
Which certain point has he boxed himself into a corner on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He says a player who goes down hasn’t decided they’ve been fouled.
Yet he also says that it’s the referee who determines if a foul occurred.
So clearly a player has decided they’ve been fouled, by his ‘logic’ if they choose to go down.
I’m struggling to understand your first sentence:
“He says a player who goes down hasn’t decided they’ve been fouled”
I said:
“Well if the player has chosen to go down before the referee has made a decision, then they have decided they've been fouled.”
He said:
“No they haven't. They have highlighted they've been fouled and then the referee makes the decision.”
Can you make any sense of his point? Because I can’t.
Of course the player has decided they’ve been fouled. They believe they’ve been fouled so they throw themselves over. That’s his claim, and he’s trying to squirm out of it because it leads to a flaw in his wider point.
“Well if the player has chosen to go down before the referee has made a decision, then they have decided they've been fouled”
----------------------------------------------------------
The players haven’t decided anything. They player has either felt he’s been fouled and decided to go down to influence the referee, or he has gone down as a natural result of the challenge. Neither action determines whether it’s a coil or not. The referee makes that decision, hopefully based on the challenge itself, not the players reaction to it. That’s the referee’s job.
—————
He said:
“No they haven’t. They have highlighted they’ve been fouled and the referee makes his decision
This is semantics. You seem to be debating the meaning of a word.
‘The player feels he’s been fouled and decides to go down’
‘The player has decided he’s been fouled and decides to go down’
‘The player believes he’s been fouled and decides to go down’
These are all the same thing.
If this is the basis for TOOR objecting to what I’ve claimed he said, then it’s a misunderstanding at most - although id say it’s absolutely absurd.
We can’t debate the wider point because of it.
Ultimately, TOOR said ‘why shouldn’t they’, which means he supports the players decision to dive if they believe they’ve been fouled.
That’s the crux of the point, from which his flawed view begins.
It’s a shame we have to waste a page trying to get him to admit that.
Sorry, I didn’t finish my reply before posting.
In response to TOOR saying: they have highlighted they’ve been fouled:
Yes, they have highlighted that. But again that isn’t their decision to make. That’s the referee’s job.
They may be trying to influence the ref, which of course happens, and isn’t necessarily a wrong thing to do, but what they feel doesn’t make it so. But equally it doesn’t mean they are wrong. Like I say, it isn’t their job to determine if they’ve been fouled or not. But that doesn’t mean that they can’t feel as though they have been (or react as though they have been).
If they react as though they’ve been fouled when they know themselves that they haven’t been, then they are cheating.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
This is semantics. You seem to be debating the meaning of a word.
‘The player feels he’s been fouled and decides to go down’
‘The player has decided he’s been fouled and decides to go down’
‘The player believes he’s been fouled and decides to go down’
These are all the same thing.
If this is the basis for TOOR objecting to what I’ve claimed he said, then it’s a misunderstanding at most - although id say it’s absolutely absurd.
We can’t debate the wider point because of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All due respect, but you seem to be debating the semantics of the words justified and entitled
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 33 seconds ago
Sorry, I didn’t finish my reply before posting.
In response to TOOR saying: they have highlighted they’ve been fouled:
Yes, they have highlighted that. But again that isn’t their decision to make. That’s the referee’s job.
They may be trying to influence the ref, which of course happens, and isn’t necessarily a wrong thing to do, but what they feel doesn’t make it so. But equally it doesn’t mean they are wrong. Like I say, it isn’t their job to determine if they’ve been fouled or not. But that doesn’t mean that they can’t feel as though they have been (or react as though they have been).
If they react as though they’ve been fouled when they know themselves that they haven’t been, then they are cheating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The wider point is that they’re cheating even if they believe they have been fouled.
But we can never get to that because TOOR seems to deny saying anything unless you quote him word for word… he’s incapable of understanding that two sentences can mean the same thing but use different words.
He’s justifying diving. Saying players are entitled to do it. Whatever you want to call it… it all means the same thing.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
This is semantics. You seem to be debating the meaning of a word.
‘The player feels he’s been fouled and decides to go down’
‘The player has decided he’s been fouled and decides to go down’
‘The player believes he’s been fouled and decides to go down’
These are all the same thing.
If this is the basis for TOOR objecting to what I’ve claimed he said, then it’s a misunderstanding at most - although id say it’s absolutely absurd.
We can’t debate the wider point because of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All due respect, but you seem to be debating the semantics of the words justified and entitled
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I don’t really have a choice, because TOOR’s claiming he didn’t say something that he clearly did - with his only argument being that the words I’ve used mean something slightly different.
Actually, it seems that you’re claiming TOOR DID say something (your words: “that he clearly did&rdquo.
His argument isn’t just based on the words he used meaning something slightly different. He has asked you to quote him saying what you have accused him of saying. As yet you haven’t done that. The one quote you did provide is ambiguous at best, and you have said that you will find more and “make him squirm”.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
Actually, it seems that you’re claiming TOOR DID say something (your words: “that he clearly did&rdquo.
His argument isn’t just based on the words he used meaning something slightly different. He has asked you to quote him saying what you have accused him of saying. As yet you haven’t done that. The one quote you did provide is ambiguous at best, and you have said that you will find more and “make him squirm”.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If I can be bothered I will.
But you’re wrong to say it’s ambiguous. He’s basically repeated what I accused him of on here.
He’s justifying players diving if they think they’ve been fouled. That is the same as saying they’re entitled to dive if they think they’ve been fouled.
What I have noticed about this forum is that you find yourself going down rabbit holes in debates, never to return to the actual point.
Probably because it’s hard to pick up tone and context in written form, but bloody annoying.
We’re now debating about three different things because of it.
Clearly (excuse the pun) it is ambiguous! It hasn’t ended this debate. I’ve seen nothing as of yet from you quoting TOOR that will end this. All I’ve seen is your interpretation of an ambiguous quote which TOOR has tried to explain what he meant by it.
You opened this “can of worms” (your words). You’re saying if you can be bothered you’ll prove it beyond doubt. So do that, please, be bothered to do it. If you can’t be bothered, then let it go.
It’s what, a two, three year old discussion/debate? Why does it matter? Why did you (that’s you) bring it back up again, and do so while saying “if I can be bothered I’ll prove it”?
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 8 minutes ago
Clearly (excuse the pun) it is ambiguous! It hasn’t ended this debate. I’ve seen nothing as of yet from you quoting TOOR that will end this. All I’ve seen is your interpretation of an ambiguous quote which TOOR has tried to explain what he meant by it.
You opened this “can of worms” (your words). You’re saying if you can be bothered you’ll prove it beyond doubt. So do that, please, be bothered to do it. If you can’t be bothered, then let it go.
It’s what, a two, three year old discussion/debate? Why does it matter? Why did you (that’s you) bring it back up again, and do so while saying “if I can be bothered I’ll prove it”?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn’t matter.
And it’s a distraction to the actual football debate, which is interesting imo.
But since I said that, it’s very clear that TOOR’s not denying having the opinion that I believe he has. He just misinterpreted my accusation because he’s intent on denying the two things are the same.
It’s all quite pathetic and I’d rather focus on the actual point - that players who go down, even if they believe they’ve been fouled, are cheating.
Further, this is a tiny proportion of players and incidents. The vast majority are just throwing themselves around in the hope they’ll get a decision.
You are a class above Winston. The arrogance you have to write the following:
it’s very clear that TOOR’s not denying having the opinion that I believe he has. He just misinterpreted my accusation because he’s intent on denying
Is astounding.
What exactly is wrong with TOOR himself being misunderstood and TOOR himself trying to explain what it was he actually did mean?
What is that such a bone of contention for you? And then for you to write that sentence above (that I quoted), on the back of you saying that it doesn’t even matter no less, while it was you who raised this old debate in the first place…
I don’t get you Winston. You are clearly intelligent, and successful by your own admission. Why do you have such a problem with so many posters here, that your intent here is to belittle them, argue and then argue some more with them, be so aggressive and antagonistic in your posts, when really, all anyone who is here really just wants to talk about football, a game we all supposedly love?
Oh.
You decided to make it personal.
There’s nothing arrogant about what I said. I think perhaps you’ve misinterpreted my point, which is a perfect demonstration of the issues with context and tone in written debates.
Shame you decided to go down that road although looking back, perhaps you were just seeking to disagree with me all the time.
“all anyone who is here really just wants to talk about football, a game we all supposedly love?”
This made me chuckle.
You’re giving people who use this forum waaaaay to much credit, not to mention ignoring that I’m the one who did want to discuss a football related subject, not debate the semantics of what the word ‘entitled’ means.
Make it personal
Oh, is that a big no no in your world?
So now we know where Winston’s morality lies.
It’s not about making it personal, it’s about having the decency to step back and say, maybe the way I interpreted a comment wasn’t the way it was meant to be taken.
That isn’t a bad thing. We all do it. You said as much yourself given the sometimes difficulty in truely understanding what a person means. You afforded TOOR no leg room in that regard. And despite being asked several days ago to come up with a quote, you’ve responded by saying “you will if you can be bothered”.
I’ll end this here, other than asking you again, on behalf of myself and indeed TOOR, please be bothered Winston. Find that quote, and then you can end this debate by winning it once and for all.
It’s not a big no. I just didn’t think it was necessary given the discussion.
I haven’t misinterpreted what TOOR said. He’s repeated his belief on this thread. The only bone of contention is the way I’ve described it apparently doesn’t match with his understanding of what he said, which is absurd, and has led to a needless debate about the semantics of a word.
For some reason you’ve got wound up by the whole thing, so yes, it’s best you leave it there.
For what it’s worth, this isn’t about the quote. It’s about the point TOOR was making when he made that comment.
If you were genuinely interested in discussing football then you’d have focused on that, instead of the quote.
Jesus Winston. If you want to believe I said players are entitled to go down, then fine. Go with that. The end.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
Actually, it seems that you’re claiming TOOR DID say something (your words: “that he clearly did&rdquo.
His argument isn’t just based on the words he used meaning something slightly different. He has asked you to quote him saying what you have accused him of saying. As yet you haven’t done that. The one quote you did provide is ambiguous at best, and you have said that you will find more and “make him squirm”.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If I can be bothered I will.
But you’re wrong to say it’s ambiguous. He’s basically repeated what I accused him of on here.
He’s justifying players diving if they think they’ve been fouled. That is the same as saying they’re entitled to dive if they think they’ve been fouled.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can him justifying it be the same as "they are entitled"....the ref will decide this with a card or not...because they aren't "entitled" whether they do it or not
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 29 minutes ago
Jesus Winston. If you want to believe I said players are entitled to go down, then fine. Go with that. The end.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow up TOOR.
Sign in if you want to comment
Scrap VAR
Page 12 of 13
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
posted on 5/2/24
Which certain point has he boxed himself into a corner on?
posted on 5/2/24
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 13 minutes ago
Which certain point has he boxed himself into a corner on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He says a player who goes down hasn’t decided they’ve been fouled.
Yet he also says that it’s the referee who determines if a foul occurred.
So clearly a player has decided they’ve been fouled, by his ‘logic’ if they choose to go down.
posted on 5/2/24
I’m struggling to understand your first sentence:
“He says a player who goes down hasn’t decided they’ve been fouled”
posted on 5/2/24
I said:
“Well if the player has chosen to go down before the referee has made a decision, then they have decided they've been fouled.”
He said:
“No they haven't. They have highlighted they've been fouled and then the referee makes the decision.”
Can you make any sense of his point? Because I can’t.
Of course the player has decided they’ve been fouled. They believe they’ve been fouled so they throw themselves over. That’s his claim, and he’s trying to squirm out of it because it leads to a flaw in his wider point.
posted on 5/2/24
“Well if the player has chosen to go down before the referee has made a decision, then they have decided they've been fouled”
----------------------------------------------------------
The players haven’t decided anything. They player has either felt he’s been fouled and decided to go down to influence the referee, or he has gone down as a natural result of the challenge. Neither action determines whether it’s a coil or not. The referee makes that decision, hopefully based on the challenge itself, not the players reaction to it. That’s the referee’s job.
—————
He said:
“No they haven’t. They have highlighted they’ve been fouled and the referee makes his decision
posted on 5/2/24
This is semantics. You seem to be debating the meaning of a word.
‘The player feels he’s been fouled and decides to go down’
‘The player has decided he’s been fouled and decides to go down’
‘The player believes he’s been fouled and decides to go down’
These are all the same thing.
If this is the basis for TOOR objecting to what I’ve claimed he said, then it’s a misunderstanding at most - although id say it’s absolutely absurd.
We can’t debate the wider point because of it.
posted on 5/2/24
Ultimately, TOOR said ‘why shouldn’t they’, which means he supports the players decision to dive if they believe they’ve been fouled.
That’s the crux of the point, from which his flawed view begins.
It’s a shame we have to waste a page trying to get him to admit that.
posted on 5/2/24
Sorry, I didn’t finish my reply before posting.
In response to TOOR saying: they have highlighted they’ve been fouled:
Yes, they have highlighted that. But again that isn’t their decision to make. That’s the referee’s job.
They may be trying to influence the ref, which of course happens, and isn’t necessarily a wrong thing to do, but what they feel doesn’t make it so. But equally it doesn’t mean they are wrong. Like I say, it isn’t their job to determine if they’ve been fouled or not. But that doesn’t mean that they can’t feel as though they have been (or react as though they have been).
If they react as though they’ve been fouled when they know themselves that they haven’t been, then they are cheating.
posted on 5/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
This is semantics. You seem to be debating the meaning of a word.
‘The player feels he’s been fouled and decides to go down’
‘The player has decided he’s been fouled and decides to go down’
‘The player believes he’s been fouled and decides to go down’
These are all the same thing.
If this is the basis for TOOR objecting to what I’ve claimed he said, then it’s a misunderstanding at most - although id say it’s absolutely absurd.
We can’t debate the wider point because of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All due respect, but you seem to be debating the semantics of the words justified and entitled
posted on 5/2/24
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 33 seconds ago
Sorry, I didn’t finish my reply before posting.
In response to TOOR saying: they have highlighted they’ve been fouled:
Yes, they have highlighted that. But again that isn’t their decision to make. That’s the referee’s job.
They may be trying to influence the ref, which of course happens, and isn’t necessarily a wrong thing to do, but what they feel doesn’t make it so. But equally it doesn’t mean they are wrong. Like I say, it isn’t their job to determine if they’ve been fouled or not. But that doesn’t mean that they can’t feel as though they have been (or react as though they have been).
If they react as though they’ve been fouled when they know themselves that they haven’t been, then they are cheating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The wider point is that they’re cheating even if they believe they have been fouled.
But we can never get to that because TOOR seems to deny saying anything unless you quote him word for word… he’s incapable of understanding that two sentences can mean the same thing but use different words.
He’s justifying diving. Saying players are entitled to do it. Whatever you want to call it… it all means the same thing.
posted on 5/2/24
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
This is semantics. You seem to be debating the meaning of a word.
‘The player feels he’s been fouled and decides to go down’
‘The player has decided he’s been fouled and decides to go down’
‘The player believes he’s been fouled and decides to go down’
These are all the same thing.
If this is the basis for TOOR objecting to what I’ve claimed he said, then it’s a misunderstanding at most - although id say it’s absolutely absurd.
We can’t debate the wider point because of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All due respect, but you seem to be debating the semantics of the words justified and entitled
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I don’t really have a choice, because TOOR’s claiming he didn’t say something that he clearly did - with his only argument being that the words I’ve used mean something slightly different.
posted on 5/2/24
Actually, it seems that you’re claiming TOOR DID say something (your words: “that he clearly did&rdquo.
His argument isn’t just based on the words he used meaning something slightly different. He has asked you to quote him saying what you have accused him of saying. As yet you haven’t done that. The one quote you did provide is ambiguous at best, and you have said that you will find more and “make him squirm”.
posted on 5/2/24
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
Actually, it seems that you’re claiming TOOR DID say something (your words: “that he clearly did&rdquo.
His argument isn’t just based on the words he used meaning something slightly different. He has asked you to quote him saying what you have accused him of saying. As yet you haven’t done that. The one quote you did provide is ambiguous at best, and you have said that you will find more and “make him squirm”.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If I can be bothered I will.
But you’re wrong to say it’s ambiguous. He’s basically repeated what I accused him of on here.
He’s justifying players diving if they think they’ve been fouled. That is the same as saying they’re entitled to dive if they think they’ve been fouled.
posted on 5/2/24
What I have noticed about this forum is that you find yourself going down rabbit holes in debates, never to return to the actual point.
Probably because it’s hard to pick up tone and context in written form, but bloody annoying.
We’re now debating about three different things because of it.
posted on 5/2/24
Clearly (excuse the pun) it is ambiguous! It hasn’t ended this debate. I’ve seen nothing as of yet from you quoting TOOR that will end this. All I’ve seen is your interpretation of an ambiguous quote which TOOR has tried to explain what he meant by it.
You opened this “can of worms” (your words). You’re saying if you can be bothered you’ll prove it beyond doubt. So do that, please, be bothered to do it. If you can’t be bothered, then let it go.
It’s what, a two, three year old discussion/debate? Why does it matter? Why did you (that’s you) bring it back up again, and do so while saying “if I can be bothered I’ll prove it”?
posted on 5/2/24
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 8 minutes ago
Clearly (excuse the pun) it is ambiguous! It hasn’t ended this debate. I’ve seen nothing as of yet from you quoting TOOR that will end this. All I’ve seen is your interpretation of an ambiguous quote which TOOR has tried to explain what he meant by it.
You opened this “can of worms” (your words). You’re saying if you can be bothered you’ll prove it beyond doubt. So do that, please, be bothered to do it. If you can’t be bothered, then let it go.
It’s what, a two, three year old discussion/debate? Why does it matter? Why did you (that’s you) bring it back up again, and do so while saying “if I can be bothered I’ll prove it”?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn’t matter.
And it’s a distraction to the actual football debate, which is interesting imo.
But since I said that, it’s very clear that TOOR’s not denying having the opinion that I believe he has. He just misinterpreted my accusation because he’s intent on denying the two things are the same.
It’s all quite pathetic and I’d rather focus on the actual point - that players who go down, even if they believe they’ve been fouled, are cheating.
Further, this is a tiny proportion of players and incidents. The vast majority are just throwing themselves around in the hope they’ll get a decision.
posted on 5/2/24
You are a class above Winston. The arrogance you have to write the following:
it’s very clear that TOOR’s not denying having the opinion that I believe he has. He just misinterpreted my accusation because he’s intent on denying
Is astounding.
What exactly is wrong with TOOR himself being misunderstood and TOOR himself trying to explain what it was he actually did mean?
What is that such a bone of contention for you? And then for you to write that sentence above (that I quoted), on the back of you saying that it doesn’t even matter no less, while it was you who raised this old debate in the first place…
I don’t get you Winston. You are clearly intelligent, and successful by your own admission. Why do you have such a problem with so many posters here, that your intent here is to belittle them, argue and then argue some more with them, be so aggressive and antagonistic in your posts, when really, all anyone who is here really just wants to talk about football, a game we all supposedly love?
posted on 5/2/24
Oh.
You decided to make it personal.
There’s nothing arrogant about what I said. I think perhaps you’ve misinterpreted my point, which is a perfect demonstration of the issues with context and tone in written debates.
Shame you decided to go down that road although looking back, perhaps you were just seeking to disagree with me all the time.
posted on 5/2/24
“all anyone who is here really just wants to talk about football, a game we all supposedly love?”
This made me chuckle.
You’re giving people who use this forum waaaaay to much credit, not to mention ignoring that I’m the one who did want to discuss a football related subject, not debate the semantics of what the word ‘entitled’ means.
posted on 5/2/24
too much*
posted on 5/2/24
Make it personal
Oh, is that a big no no in your world?
So now we know where Winston’s morality lies.
It’s not about making it personal, it’s about having the decency to step back and say, maybe the way I interpreted a comment wasn’t the way it was meant to be taken.
That isn’t a bad thing. We all do it. You said as much yourself given the sometimes difficulty in truely understanding what a person means. You afforded TOOR no leg room in that regard. And despite being asked several days ago to come up with a quote, you’ve responded by saying “you will if you can be bothered”.
I’ll end this here, other than asking you again, on behalf of myself and indeed TOOR, please be bothered Winston. Find that quote, and then you can end this debate by winning it once and for all.
posted on 5/2/24
It’s not a big no. I just didn’t think it was necessary given the discussion.
I haven’t misinterpreted what TOOR said. He’s repeated his belief on this thread. The only bone of contention is the way I’ve described it apparently doesn’t match with his understanding of what he said, which is absurd, and has led to a needless debate about the semantics of a word.
For some reason you’ve got wound up by the whole thing, so yes, it’s best you leave it there.
For what it’s worth, this isn’t about the quote. It’s about the point TOOR was making when he made that comment.
If you were genuinely interested in discussing football then you’d have focused on that, instead of the quote.
posted on 6/2/24
Jesus Winston. If you want to believe I said players are entitled to go down, then fine. Go with that. The end.
posted on 6/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
Actually, it seems that you’re claiming TOOR DID say something (your words: “that he clearly did&rdquo.
His argument isn’t just based on the words he used meaning something slightly different. He has asked you to quote him saying what you have accused him of saying. As yet you haven’t done that. The one quote you did provide is ambiguous at best, and you have said that you will find more and “make him squirm”.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If I can be bothered I will.
But you’re wrong to say it’s ambiguous. He’s basically repeated what I accused him of on here.
He’s justifying players diving if they think they’ve been fouled. That is the same as saying they’re entitled to dive if they think they’ve been fouled.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can him justifying it be the same as "they are entitled"....the ref will decide this with a card or not...because they aren't "entitled" whether they do it or not
posted on 6/2/24
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 29 minutes ago
Jesus Winston. If you want to believe I said players are entitled to go down, then fine. Go with that. The end.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow up TOOR.
Page 12 of 13
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13