Stuck on Repeats

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

But the rule does, in fact, have a point, which you seem stubbornly reluctant to acknowledge.

But see this.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

isn't a break away in soccer pretty much always a sure goal? my kids' coach was a mid-level defender for the third string of pro ball in Italy but he could place a ball to any corner of the goal from thirty yards out. With journeymen having that accuracy a goalie can only stop a breakaway by luck.

and the passing is different than other sports. in hockey a pass has to be low, so you can stay between an offensive guy and the puck. In football the receiver has to catch it so if the defender is with the receive he can defend. in soccer a long dump that lands twenty feet ahead of a charging forward is a perfectly legit pass and will lead to a breakaway, and that is harder to defend.

Flower, does this make sense?

It makes sense, but you would be surprised at the number of one-on-one breakaways where the keeper makes the save. If the keeper rushes out in time and cuts off the angles and the breakaway forward does not have control of the ball in time, he may be forced to try to chip the ball over the keeper or basically dribble around the keeper. Plus the keeper has the advantage of being able to dive on the ball (if he is still in the box). A good striker can do that a lot of the time, but it is surprising how many times a top level striker will not finish in that situation.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

That would be a valid point if that were my argument.

You're either full of shit or don't understand what is coming out of your own "mouth."

Originally Posted by Adder

Meanwhile, if your point was, "I don't like the offside rule in soccer and I refuse to acknowledge its purpose" you coulda said that once too.

Actually, when the person I was discussing this with made sense (see Sidd), I absolutely acknowledged it. I neither agree with nor respect your take.

Originally Posted by Adder

I agree with whichever of the others said it would make sense to eliminate the rule within the box to allow for more dynamic pay near the goal.

That's shocking. Why didn't you join that conversation then instead of railing on and on about how everyone would just kick it super far and no one would be able to defend?

Originally Posted by Adder

That's not inconsistent with the point of the rule as I see it either.

And all of a sudden, once you got past the dump and chase bullshit you're so focused on, you sound like you are agreeing with me.

Originally Posted by Adder

But the rule does, in fact, have a point, which you seem stubbornly reluctant to acknowledge.

Once again, you are a moron. If I initially ask why the rule exists and then say, "I see. Then why does it exist in every scenario, even in tight spaces way down the field?" that necessarily means I have acknowledged why it exists. I can't help it if you are too stupid to apply even the most basic form of logic to your arguments.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Love the first one, but I think you should do an Olympics-themed special.

Really excited to win a medal:



TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You're either full of shit or don't understand what is coming out of your own "mouth."

Actually, when the person I was discussing this with made sense (see Sidd), I absolutely acknowledged it. I neither agree with nor respect your take.

That's shocking. Why didn't you join that conversation then instead of railing on and on about how everyone would just kick it super far and no one would be able to defend?

And all of a sudden, once you got past the dump and chase bullshit you're so focused on, you sound like you are agreeing with me.

Once again, you are a moron. If I initially ask why the rule exists and then say, "I see. Then why does it exist in every scenario, even in tight spaces way down the field?" that necessarily means I have acknowledged why it exists. I can't help it if you are too stupid to apply even the most basic form of logic to your arguments.

TM

I realize that it's your thing to be an asshole all the time, but do you even have any appreciation of the irony involved in your repeatedly calling me dumb when it took an extensive exchange for you to stop insisting the rule was unnecessary? (And yes, Ty, I saw that, but I also saw this, this, this and this.

Do people talk to you in real life? Do they just ignore your "mischaracterize and obfuscate while pounding the table act" or what?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

What the Florida!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think it makes sense to limit super-long passes, but once you're over the midfield line (or some line 10 or 20 yards past that), you should be able to get behind the defense for a break-away.

I don't get how the rule achieves that when a five yard pass violates the rule if the defender is 1 foot behind the last defender when the pass is made, especially when it occurs deep on the defensive side. Makes no sense. So, maybe you don't eliminate it, but modify it so that long passes past a certain point on the field are disallowed.

TM

I think for very short passes the offside rule doesn't make a lot of sense. I agree with you.

But giving soccer refs and linesmen even more room for making fuzzy calls would be a solution much worse than the problem.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

Do people talk to you in real life? Do they just ignore your "mischaracterize and obfuscate while pounding the table act" or what?

Maybe in real life people eventually drop a subject when they find their discussion is going nowhere?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Maybe in real life people eventually drop a subject when they find their discussion is going nowhere?

That could not be.

[Hank Chinaski]

there are no chik-fil-a anywhere near here, so even though I boycott it is more in theory. but I've heard they are delicious and that makes cfl sandwiches the only thing God wants us to indulge in that is actually pleasurable.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

there are no chik-fil-a anywhere near here, so even though I boycott it is more in theory. but I've heard they are delicious and that makes cfl sandwiches the only thing God wants us to indulge in that is actually pleasurable.

Actually, I always found procreative, birth-control free missionary sex in the dark with my wife to be pleasurable, but she might have disagreed, I suppose, if I had ever felt commanded by God to ask her.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Actually, I always found procreative, birth-control free missionary sex in the dark with my wife to be pleasurable, but she might have disagreed, I suppose, if I had ever felt commanded by God to ask her.

you pull out, which makes baby Jesus cry. you're supposed to have sex exactly as many times as you have a kid. and you don't get two fucks for twins. but I see your point. limit my statement to food/drink.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

A volcanic explosion somewhere in the tropics killed a third of London's population in the 13th century.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

A volcanic explosion somewhere in the tropics killed a third of London's population in the 13th century.

so will you now chill on the whole "global warming will kill us all" meme?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Actually, I always found procreative, birth-control free missionary sex in the dark with my wife to be pleasurable, but she might have disagreed, I suppose, if I had ever felt commanded by God to ask her.

It's a shame it never works in reverse cowgirl. Or maybe it does, but Jesus hates those children.

(Perhaps that's how you wind up with a kid like the one in the Omen.)