Opinion Australian Woken (Open)

[Rodzilla]

I'm pretty sure I've always argued with you. But it was usually about whether a try was actually a try.

yeah i remember you defended the keary pass off the ground in 2014, bringing up the rule book to explain why the wrong referee was not wrong, even back then you didn't understand anything, you certainly didnt understand rugby league back then

the rule section is describing any of these incidents as constituting a tackle, you spun it and in your desperation to defend south sydney and the nrl against the bulldogs, you made it to mean that D needs to happen

Keary pass off the ground | Page 5 | The Kennel Forum

Spoiler: Hacky Mcact

SECTION 11: The Tackle and Play-the-ball

Sub-section 2 - A player in possession is tackled:

When tackled: Grounded - A) when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball comes into contact with the ground.

When tackled: Upright - B) when he is held by one or more opposing players in such a manner that he can make no further progress and cannot part with the ball.

When tackled: Succumbing - C) when, being held by an opponent, the tackled player makes it evident that he has succumbed to the tackle and wishes to be released in order to play-the-ball.

When tackled: Hand on player already grounded - D) when he is lying on the ground and an opponent places a hand on him.


In other words, that rule only comes in when a player is, and I quote "Lying on the ground and an opponent places a hand on him"

Fortunately I already went to specsavers and got a good deal on my glasses which allows me to see things. Amazing devices they are.

 

[Rodzilla]

btw which are the 2 former USSR states that russia has taken back?

@Dognacious @Doogie

 

[Hacky McAxe]

yeah i remember you defended the keary pass off the ground in 2014, bringing up the rule book to explain why the wrong referee was not wrong, even back then you didn't understand anything, you certainly didnt understand rugby league back then

the rule section is describing any of these incidents as constituting a tackle, you spun it and in your desperation to defend south sydney and the nrl against the bulldogs, you made it to mean that D needs to happen

Keary pass off the ground | Page 5 | The Kennel Forum

Spoiler: Hacky Mcact

SECTION 11: The Tackle and Play-the-ball

Sub-section 2 - A player in possession is tackled:

When tackled: Grounded - A) when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball comes into contact with the ground.

When tackled: Upright - B) when he is held by one or more opposing players in such a manner that he can make no further progress and cannot part with the ball.

When tackled: Succumbing - C) when, being held by an opponent, the tackled player makes it evident that he has succumbed to the tackle and wishes to be released in order to play-the-ball.

When tackled: Hand on player already grounded - D) when he is lying on the ground and an opponent places a hand on him.


In other words, that rule only comes in when a player is, and I quote "Lying on the ground and an opponent places a hand on him"

Fortunately I already went to specsavers and got a good deal on my glasses which allows me to see things. Amazing devices they are.

I can barely remember who Keary was. Was he the ranga?

Regardless. I'm sometimes wrong in my arguments and when I'm wrong, I'm happy to admit it.

But knowing you... I was probably right. Everytime I clearly show you that you are wrong about something, you double down and pretend that you know more then scientists, or the WHO, or every single referee or associated professional that ever worked for the NRL.

Seems more likely that I was right and you were stubborn.

 

[Mr 95%]

@Rodzilla im amazed how you recall all these posts where you had differing opinion.. its mesmerising.

 

[Rodzilla]

I can barely remember who Keary was. Was he the ranga?

Regardless. I'm sometimes wrong in my arguments and when I'm wrong, I'm happy to admit it.

But knowing you... I was probably right. Everytime I clearly show you that you are wrong about something, you double down and pretend that you know more then scientists, or the WHO, or every single referee or associated professional that ever worked for the NRL.

Seems more likely that I was right and you were stubborn.

well happily admit you were wrong about the nrl rulebook section 11 and that keary passed off the ground in 2014

you went to half admit you were wrong but had to save face and claim that the problem is the nrl rulebook and that it doesn't have specifics

" I can live with that. No try. I just wish they would verify the ruling. The problem I have is that they don't have specifics for these kind of things so the ref can rule how they want based on their own interpretation. "

the problem was you not being able to handle that someone questioning an authority, so you were determined to correct the situation, you read the rule book section that outlined all the specifics involved in a tackled player, you read it and your bias led you to mistakenly believe that all those things need to happen, you didn't happily admit that you were wrong, you tried to act that you were not wrong and the rulebook is wrong

 

[Memberberries]

@Rodzilla im amazed how you recall all these posts where you had differing opinion.. its mesmerising.

Some people see it as a gift others as a curse!

 

[Mr 95%]

Some people see it as a gift others as a curse!

Wise words..

 

[Memberberries]

Wise words..

I have a friend from school. I've known him for over 30 years.
He can account anyone's movements, what they said, how they moved, exactly what time, minute, tick, right down to the tee.

E.g he will say "remember that time in 1995 when we were playing footy at recess and you shoulder charged Milan?"

I always told him it's a shame he didn't use that gift to advance technology or something?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

well happily admit you were wrong about the nrl rulebook section 11 and that keary passed off the ground in 2014

you went to half admit you were wrong but had to save face and claim that the problem is the nrl rulebook and that it doesn't have specifics

" I can live with that. No try. I just wish they would verify the ruling. The problem I have is that they don't have specifics for these kind of things so the ref can rule how they want based on their own interpretation. "

the problem was you not being able to handle that someone questioning an authority, so you were determined to correct the situation, you read the rule book section that outlined all the specifics involved in a tackled player, you read it and your bias led you to mistakenly believe that all those things need to happen, you didn't happily admit that you were wrong, you tried to act that you were not wrong and the rulebook is wrong

2014... WTF? I don't remember what happened at 20:14 yesterday.

Stupidly, I actually went back and looked. I still don't remember the game or the conversation. But it looks like I was arguing with Dawgfather, and debating with Coach. And there was some brief interaction with you maybe?

And I said that I could accept it as tackled as an interpretation. But that it could also be interpreted as "not tackled" which is what the ref apparently did.

 

[Mr 95%]

I have a friend from school. I've known him for over 30 years.
He can account anyone's movements, what they said, how they moved, exactly what time, minute, tick, right down to the tee.

E.g he will say "remember that time in 1995 when we were playing footy at recess and you shoulder charged Milan?"

I always told him it's a shame he didn't use that gift to advance technology or something?

That’s freaky!

 

[Rodzilla]

2014... WTF? I don't remember what happened at 20:14 yesterday.

Stupidly, I actually went back and looked. I still don't remember the game or the conversation. But it looks like I was arguing with Dawgfather, and debating with Coach. And there was some brief interaction with you maybe?

And I said that I could accept it as tackled as an interpretation. But that it could also be interpreted as "not tackled" which is what the ref apparently did.

its not interpreted as a not tackled, thats the problem, its specifically outlined in the rulebook that any of those situations constitute a tackle and the problem is you

you don't remember 8:14pm yesterday because you are dumb

 

[Memberberries]

That’s freaky!

It's some spectrum of autism imo.
Autistic people are quite intelligent.

There was an Autistic kid at my high school.
The kids picked on him until they worked out he could do maths quicker than a calculator!

His dream was to play for Cambridge Park.
Instead the A grade team won the grand final and brought him onto the field , in middle of the team and with the coach so he could raise the shield!

 

[Hacky McAxe]

its not interpreted as a not tackled, thats the problem, its specifically outlined in the rulebook that any of those situations constitute a tackle and the problem is you

you don't remember 8:14pm yesterday because you are dumb

If looks like JacobShade said that the NRL rule is based on the ball carrying arm. This JacobShade bloke sounds like he knows what he's talking about. I think I'll trust him.

 

[cntrbry bnkstwn]

…and they do differentiate between the athlete and the country. That’s why the athletes are still allowed to compete.

not if you're nikita mazepin

 

[Mr 95%]

It's some spectrum of autism imo.
Autistic people are quite intelligent.

There was an Autistic kid at my high school.
The kids picked on him until they worked out he could do maths quicker than a calculator!

His dream was to play for Cambridge Park.
Instead the A grade team won the grand final and brought him onto the field , in middle of the team and with the coach so he could raise the shield!

How good is that..what a great story.

 

[Rodzilla]

If looks like JacobShade said that the NRL rule is based on the ball carrying arm. This JacobShade bloke sounds like he knows what he's talking about. I think I'll trust him.

jacobshade tried to act like the player needs to be lying down with a hand placed on him, he sounds like an actor, someone who doesn't understand rugby league, someone who bows down to authority or south sydney fan

 

[Hacky McAxe]

It's some spectrum of autism imo.
Autistic people are quite intelligent.

There was an Autistic kid at my high school.
The kids picked on him until they worked out he could do maths quicker than a calculator!

His dream was to play for Cambridge Park.
Instead the A grade team won the grand final and brought him onto the field , in middle of the team and with the coach so he could raise the shield!

That's a bit right, but mainly a myth (the autistic kids being smart)

There are high functioning Austic people that are savants. Ridiculously talented. But that's extremely rare. Most autistic kids are just lose to moderate functioning. Less than 1% are savants.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Great for the kids that are savants though. But unfortunately most are not. I worked with Autistic kids for a while. It can be pretty heartbreaking seeing what the parents go through.

 

[Memberberries]

How good is that..what a great story.

Yeah the kids picked on him when he first came to our school.
About 2 weeks Later he had protection and was untouchable.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

jacobshade tried to act like the player needs to be lying down with a hand placed on him, he sounds like an actor, someone who doesn't understand rugby league, someone who bows down to authority or south sydney fan

Seems like he knows what he's talking about. The guy also seems pretty intelligent. That explains why you don't like him.