Diving

by doctor_grey Sat 23 May 2015, 11:22 am

First topic message reminder :

I noticed the other thread about cheating/diving was locked. Was too parochial, I presume. However, this is an appropriate topic for discussion and there is no need to make it about any nation or club. For purposes of this discussion, I would separate diving from other forms of cheating, and from foul play.

Diving is clearly creeping in from soccer and is very disappointing. Though still relatively infrequent, we do see more and more incidents. To me the worst was when Bryan Habana was caught clearly faking. It was embarrassing for him and the sport. And goes to the core integrity of Rugby.

We have seen incidents involving most teams and with players from all major Rugby nations. So, no one is completely clean. I can understand why some players might feel the need to embellish contact if they believe the referee didn't see something. But, these incidents are likely rare, and I still don't like or condone it.

Overall, how do you think we should officiate diving? What are appropriate sanctions? Anything else to get it out of the sport? Like many things in Rugby, I believe the first step is to establish uniform standards, then try, however difficult, to have the referees enforce consistently. I would also make this an equal part of post match reviews for sanction. What else?

by Guest Thu 28 May 2015, 11:41 am

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
ScarletSpiderman wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
Munchkin wrote:Matawalu was looking to get Lutton carded by feigning injury.

Was he? Oh right, I'm glad that's an established fact now. When did he tell you?

Wind your horns in, numpty. I have watched the clips several times, and based on the evidence I viewed, I concluded that Matawalu feigned injury to fool officials into carding Lutton. You don't agree? Fine. You don't like it? Tough.

How can you actually claim it was intentionally to get a card? I can accept it was to get a pen, but to get a card?

Also the evidence viewed doesn't even 100% prove that it was over-egged. If Lutton had pulled with the arm that he had around Niko, then it would have caused him to go down in a similar way to the way he did go.

You don't agree? Fine. You don't like it? Tough, unless you can get a confession from him and then I will apologise.

He dived to get the penalty. He feigned injury to have Lutton carded. Why else would he feign injury?

Not over egged? Try viewing with both your eyes next time, Scarlets. Very few would claim that Matawalu didn't play act. Not even the Warriors fans!

P.s It's my opinion that Matawalu attempted to have Lutton carded. I believe it's a more than reasonable deduction. You don't agree, then fine, you don't agree.

Yes because me being neutral would mean I would be one-eyed on the subject, where as I would assume an Ulster fan would possibly not be in such a fortunate position to be looking at it binocularly. But it is good to see your keeping your cool on this one, and not just jumping on the opinons of others that vary from your own.

If you look at the footage, Lutton's arm is definitely in contact with Niko's chest/collar area. The shot is from behind, so it is unable to see if it is an open hand, a closed hand that is not holding onto the shirt/player, or a closed hand gripping the shirt/player. So without seeing another angle to see what Lutton's hand was doing, it is not possible to say if there was a pull, which would cause the player to go down, or if there was a very over-exaggerated fall.

Also seeing as there has been no citing for either player over this I would also say that, regardless of what people on internet forums, journos, and ex-players are saying, the powers that be do seem to think that either a) there is no issue to be dealt with, b) there is no evidence to actually prove there was an issue, or c) that they can't be bothered to do anything.

When a player is down there are numerous reasons for them to stay down, tiredness, annoyance, laziness, injury etc. To just jumpt

Are you neutral, Scarlets? Really? Even though you stated quite clearly that you dropped the role as a mod' to side with the likes of Chunky when he's frothing at the mouth about the Irish. I'm not convinced...

by Guest Thu 28 May 2015, 11:43 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd consider a dive going to ground when you could have stayed on your feet. You're choosing to go to ground. Refs make decisions with varying degrees of contact, impact to play, outcome to player. Throwing yourself to the floor (diving in my eyes) is trying to buy pens and cards.

Exactly

by Guest Thu 28 May 2015, 11:50 am

LordDowlais wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
Munchkin wrote:So, LD, are you going to answer this question?

I have answered it yesterday, I am not going over old ground again just to suit you.

No you didn't and you know you didn't. You're being dishonest, LD, and the reason you won't answer is because you know you have been caught out.

Ah, FFS, ok I will answer you for the LAST time. A dive is when somebody goes to ground when there is NO CONTACT. That should result in a pen against the actor and a card for the actor.

Exaggerating being fouled is different, even though you are acting outside the "ethics" of the game, you are still being fouled. So the person doing the foul should be reprimanded to how the ref sees fit. If the ref wants to have a word with the player about is nonsense then fine.

Ok, that is the last time I am saying this to you so please take my answer and disagree all you want, but I will not answer again.

What on earth are you talking about Headscratch

You're now answering a question I haven't asked!

This was my question, and I include the the original quote, as I did when last asking you the question, and of which you have managed to completely miss:

LordDowlais wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
You can equally say there is nothing in the laws about diving.....yet you say diving is cheating.....why?

What I see as diving and what you see as diving are two completely different things, I see diving as someone going to ground without any contact, you see diving as somebody who has been impeded and over exaggerating.

If you go to ground without contact you are a cheater, if somebody is cheating you and you exaggerate it, you are not cheating you are acting like a pansy to get the refs attention, two different things.

You are not answering the question. Here is your comment:

"But Matawalu did not cheat, there is nothing in the laws about over exaggerating, there is about holding players back off the ball though and that is what happened."

The bit in bold is what my question is based on. So:

You can equally say there is nothing in the laws about diving.....yet you say diving is cheating.....why?

The bits in bold are the relevant bits, LD. Do you really think you answered that? You make the claim that because there's nothing in the laws about exaggerating then exaggerating is not cheating. Yet there is nothing in the laws about diving, and yet you claim diving is cheating. You make up some nonsense about ethics and try and palm that off as an answer. It doesn't work.

P.s I think all this talk about exaggerating somehow being a 'get out of jail free' card for players is nonsense. It's nothing more than an evasion and a means to fit a particular argument. At what point does an impact on a player become an exaggeration ? I will tell you. It's when a player simulates a fall. There is no real difference between simulation and exaggeration.

by ScarletSpiderman Thu 28 May 2015, 11:54 am

Munchkin, I may not like some Irish posters attitudes but I am far from disliking the Irish people (or even their sides per ce). I think my Nan would be most upset with me if I told her that I no longer like her because or some muppets on an online forum. I have no real desire to have seen Glasgow or Ulster win, and even in the other semi I was semi torn Munster (where I have relatives) or Ospreys (who are Welsh) and decided I would settle for just seeing a good game. But if you wish to have the opinon I was emotionally involved in the incident enough to cloud my judgement then fair enough, I guess you really do only see what you want to see.

I am guessing since the only comment from my post that you saw worth 'debating' was my neutrality, that you can not argue with my view that in reality there is no hard and fast evidence to prove that there was any deception involved to try and get Lutton sent.

by clivemcl Thu 28 May 2015, 11:55 am

Munchkin wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd consider a dive going to ground when you could have stayed on your feet. You're choosing to go to ground. Refs make decisions with varying degrees of contact, impact to play, outcome to player. Throwing yourself to the floor (diving in my eyes) is trying to buy pens and cards.

Exactly

Munchkin, you agree then that Matawala did not dive. I'm confident that Luttons actions were enough to bring him to ground. Where I see the over-acting is when Niko made no effort to brace his fall wth his arms. I don't believe the actual going to ground part was acting. Do you?

http://www.the42.ie/niko-matawalu-dive-pro12-ulster-glasgow-2122111-May2015/

by ScarletSpiderman Thu 28 May 2015, 12:01 pm

clivemcl wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd consider a dive going to ground when you could have stayed on your feet. You're choosing to go to ground. Refs make decisions with varying degrees of contact, impact to play, outcome to player. Throwing yourself to the floor (diving in my eyes) is trying to buy pens and cards.

Exactly

Munchkin, you agree then that Matawala did not dive. I'm confident that Luttons actions were enough to bring him to ground. Where I see the over-acting is when Niko made no effort to brace his fall wth his arms. I don't believe the actual going to ground part was acting. Do you?

http://www.the42.ie/niko-matawalu-dive-pro12-ulster-glasgow-2122111-May2015/

Id agree with you on that one. It was the 'ref I've been taken out' hands instead of trying to protect himself from hitting the ground, that is the issue.

by LordDowlais Thu 28 May 2015, 12:02 pm

When you see it from another angle, not an Irish one, then you will see more conclusive evidence that Lutton grabbed Matawalu around his shoulder and held him as he went passed.

by ScarletSpiderman Thu 28 May 2015, 12:03 pm

LordDowlais wrote:When you see it from another angle, not an Irish one, then you will see more conclusive evidence that Lutton grabbed Matawalu around his shoulder and held him as he went passed.

Do you know where I can find that angle?

by clivemcl Thu 28 May 2015, 12:04 pm

LordDowlais wrote:When you see it from another angle, not an Irish one, then you will see more conclusive evidence that Lutton grabbed Matawalu around his shoulder and held him as he went passed.

I've been on every one of these 7 pages. Where exactly has that been denied? Headscratch

by No 7&1/2 Thu 28 May 2015, 12:06 pm

It was a dive for me.

by LordDowlais Thu 28 May 2015, 12:07 pm

Munchkin wrote:You can equally say there is nothing in the laws about diving.....yet you say diving is cheating.....why?

There is laws about diving though, it comes under the conduct part. There is no law in the land about exaggerating to point out you are being fouled though.

Take the ethics out of it for a moment as we can agree it is not within the ethics of our game, what is the difference to over exaggerating to get the ref to notice you, to go crying to the ref that somebody has fouled you after the event, they are both the same job, they both are getting the offender in trouble.

by Guest Thu 28 May 2015, 12:07 pm

clivemcl wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd consider a dive going to ground when you could have stayed on your feet. You're choosing to go to ground. Refs make decisions with varying degrees of contact, impact to play, outcome to player. Throwing yourself to the floor (diving in my eyes) is trying to buy pens and cards.

Exactly

Munchkin, you agree then that Matawala did not dive. I'm confident that Luttons actions were enough to bring him to ground. Where I see the over-acting is when Niko made no effort to brace his fall wth his arms. I don't believe the actual going to ground part was acting. Do you?

http://www.the42.ie/niko-matawalu-dive-pro12-ulster-glasgow-2122111-May2015/

Hi, Clive. No, I think he dived. In fact I know he dived. If you look at that clip again then ask yourself was Matawalu's feet lifting off the ground natural? It wasn't. He faked it. Call it exaggeration or simulation. Same thing in my book, but he faked it.

I don't like arguing with you on this because I agree with most of what you say. It's just that I have a slightly different take on where diving should be placed on the order of offences. I don't agree that Matawalu didn't dive though Hug

by LordDowlais Thu 28 May 2015, 12:08 pm

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:When you see it from another angle, not an Irish one, then you will see more conclusive evidence that Lutton grabbed Matawalu around his shoulder and held him as he went passed.

Do you know where I can find that angle?

I saw it on Scrum V, and on the night of the game, I am not as clever on here as some people, but it should be on the WWW somewhere.

by ScarletSpiderman Thu 28 May 2015, 12:09 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
ScarletSpiderman wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:When you see it from another angle, not an Irish one, then you will see more conclusive evidence that Lutton grabbed Matawalu around his shoulder and held him as he went passed.

Do you know where I can find that angle?

I saw it on Scrum V, and on the night of the game, I am not as clever on here as some people, but it should be on the WWW somewhere.

Cheers, I've been trying to find it via google, but to be honest considering how big a deal it is the only clip I have found is the one that keeps getting posted on here.

by clivemcl Thu 28 May 2015, 12:12 pm

Munchkin wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd consider a dive going to ground when you could have stayed on your feet. You're choosing to go to ground. Refs make decisions with varying degrees of contact, impact to play, outcome to player. Throwing yourself to the floor (diving in my eyes) is trying to buy pens and cards.

Exactly

Munchkin, you agree then that Matawala did not dive. I'm confident that Luttons actions were enough to bring him to ground. Where I see the over-acting is when Niko made no effort to brace his fall wth his arms. I don't believe the actual going to ground part was acting. Do you?

http://www.the42.ie/niko-matawalu-dive-pro12-ulster-glasgow-2122111-May2015/

Hi, Clive. No, I think he dived. In fact I know he dived. If you look at that clip again then ask yourself was Matawalu's feet lifting off the ground natural? It wasn't. He faked it. Call it exaggeration or simulation. Same thing in my book, but he faked it.

I don't like arguing with you on this because I agree with most of what you say. It's just that I have a slightly different take on where diving should be placed on the order of offences. I don't agree that Matawalu didn't dive though

No worries Munchkin! Hug

But in our own amicable disagreement have we not proven why the penalisation of such things is treacherous ground? Say if we were both refs/TMOs watching this on reply. We would both have a different opinion. I would say 'he probably was taken down, but milked it', you would say, 'he could have stayed on his feet - definitely a dive', and yet others would say there was no exaggeration at all.

It's one of those areas of the game where we can't expect the refs to be 100% confident in their ruling.

by LordDowlais Thu 28 May 2015, 12:16 pm

clivemcl wrote:'he probably was taken down, but milked it'

And that is what I would say.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 28 May 2015, 12:17 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
Munchkin wrote:You can equally say there is nothing in the laws about diving.....yet you say diving is cheating.....why?

There is laws about diving though, it comes under the conduct part. There is no law in the land about exaggerating to point out you are being fouled though.

Take the ethics out of it for a moment as we can agree it is not within the ethics of our game, what is the difference to over exaggerating to get the ref to notice you, to go crying to the ref that somebody has fouled you after the event, they are both the same job, they both are getting the offender in trouble.

Would you accept though that refs base their decisions of whether it was a foul on how much impact it had on the player? I've seen countless times where a slight nudge or shirt pull is ignored. If those players were finding a shirt pull meant their legs no longer worked and were falling it's no longer about getting the ref to notice but about buying a pen.

by Pete330v2 Thu 28 May 2015, 12:27 pm

Of course he was taken down by what was not by any stretch of the imagination a physical challenge. Lutton grabs him alright and it's high for sure for which he was penalised but it doesn't take much work with the grey cells to see clearly that the physicality level is low. There is no way it would have caused a player to leap into the air as Matawalu did.
Look behind what's going on in that footage and you'll see a much more physical and accidental challenge on Gilroy off the ball.

The fact is, and I think any sane person can agree, that Matawalu milked it for everything he could and he looks like an eejit for doing it. There was however no dangerous contact as You can clearly see Lutton releasing his hold as soon as he realises that's he's messed up.

by LordDowlais Thu 28 May 2015, 12:27 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
Munchkin wrote:You can equally say there is nothing in the laws about diving.....yet you say diving is cheating.....why?

There is laws about diving though, it comes under the conduct part. There is no law in the land about exaggerating to point out you are being fouled though.

Take the ethics out of it for a moment as we can agree it is not within the ethics of our game, what is the difference to over exaggerating to get the ref to notice you, to go crying to the ref that somebody has fouled you after the event, they are both the same job, they both are getting the offender in trouble.

Would you accept though that refs base their decisions of whether it was a foul on how much impact it had on the player? I've seen countless times where a slight nudge or shirt pull is ignored. If those players were finding a shirt pull meant their legs no longer worked and were falling it's no longer about getting the ref to notice but about buying a pen.

Yes I would accept that, but that is what we need the TMO for, so that the ref can have a closer look to see who was cheating, and going down or not, a nudge or a grab off the ball is not allowed. Totally different if the player has the ball in his hands of course. thumbsup

by No 7&1/2 Thu 28 May 2015, 12:34 pm

But if 'exaggeration' spreads you're not going to have all incidents checked by the TMO. Good point about having the ball in his hands; he'd have never gone over like that.

by Guest Thu 28 May 2015, 12:40 pm

clivemcl wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd consider a dive going to ground when you could have stayed on your feet. You're choosing to go to ground. Refs make decisions with varying degrees of contact, impact to play, outcome to player. Throwing yourself to the floor (diving in my eyes) is trying to buy pens and cards.

Exactly

Munchkin, you agree then that Matawala did not dive. I'm confident that Luttons actions were enough to bring him to ground. Where I see the over-acting is when Niko made no effort to brace his fall wth his arms. I don't believe the actual going to ground part was acting. Do you?

http://www.the42.ie/niko-matawalu-dive-pro12-ulster-glasgow-2122111-May2015/

Hi, Clive. No, I think he dived. In fact I know he dived. If you look at that clip again then ask yourself was Matawalu's feet lifting off the ground natural? It wasn't. He faked it. Call it exaggeration or simulation. Same thing in my book, but he faked it.

I don't like arguing with you on this because I agree with most of what you say. It's just that I have a slightly different take on where diving should be placed on the order of offences. I don't agree that Matawalu didn't dive though

No worries Munchkin!

But in our own amicable disagreement have we not proven why the penalisation of such things is treacherous ground? Say if we were both refs/TMOs watching this on reply. We would both have a different opinion. I would say 'he probably was taken down, but milked it', you would say, 'he could have stayed on his feet - definitely a dive', and yet others would say there was no exaggeration at all.

It's one of those areas of the game where we can't expect the refs to be 100% confident in their ruling.

Well, as much as I know Argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument, I'm using it anyway Very Happy

Most seem to agree that Matawalu dived, or at the least if they would not call it a dive then fell unnaturally, and unnecessarily.
I agree that it can be difficult to determine when a dive is in fact a dive, and I agree that our interpretation may differ, and may differ honestly. It's up to the officials to make that call though, and although we know that they don't always get it right, I think it would be a big step forward that rugby union is seen to be at least acting to address this issue before it becomes a big issue.
The problem at the moment is that it isn't being addressed at all. I'm not suggesting that Matawalu should have been carded for diving, or that the penalty should have been reversed. I haven't yet found any precedent to do so, and so I didn't expect as much. I do think, however, that diving is an issue that needs addressed, and it's my hope that IRB takes action soon in order to help prevent any future incidents by punishing those guilty of diving.

by LordDowlais Thu 28 May 2015, 12:41 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:But if 'exaggeration' spreads you're not going to have all incidents checked by the TMO. Good point about having the ball in his hands; he'd have never gone over like that.

Sadly because of the standard of reffing in the Pro12 in particular, then I think we will see exaggeration spreading whether it be bias or just plain incompetence it is obvious now that the players think they need to exaggerate or they will not get a pen when cheated. Lets not forget the linesman was only a few yards away from the incident and was looking straight at it, if he saw Lutton with his arm around Matawalu's neck and off the ball he should have raised his flag, but he didn't, this is the type of officiating we have to put up with in the Pro12, it making our league look like a joke to the outsiders. steam

by No 7&1/2 Thu 28 May 2015, 12:43 pm

Yup agree Munchkin. We're seeing it more and more and without some sort of punishment it'll get worse. We can talk about laughing at players being a deterrant but they used to laugh at Jurgen Klinnsman without punishment and now look at the state of football.

by LordDowlais Thu 28 May 2015, 12:44 pm

Munchkin wrote:Well, as much as I know Argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument, I'm using it anyway Very Happy Most seem to agree that Matawalu dived, or at the least if they would not call it a dive then fell unnaturally, and unnecessarily.
I agree that it can be difficult to determine when a dive is in fact a dive, and I agree that our interpretation may differ, and may differ honestly. It's up to the officials to make that call though, and although we know that they don't always get it right, I think it would be a big step forward that rugby union is seen to be at least acting to address this issue before it becomes a big issue.
The problem at the moment is that it isn't being addressed at all. I'm not suggesting that Matawalu should have been carded for diving, or that the penalty should have been reversed. I haven't yet found any precedent to do so, and so I didn't expect as much. I do think, however, that diving is an issue that needs addressed, and it's my hope that IRB takes action soon in order to help prevent any future incidents by punishing those guilty of diving.

That sir is something we can both agree on. Hug

by No 7&1/2 Thu 28 May 2015, 12:44 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:But if 'exaggeration' spreads you're not going to have all incidents checked by the TMO. Good point about having the ball in his hands; he'd have never gone over like that.

Sadly because of the standard of reffing in the Pro12 in particular, then I think we will see exaggeration spreading whether it be bias or just plain incompetence it is obvious now that the players think they need to exaggerate or they will not get a pen when cheated. Lets not forget the linesman was only a few yards away from the incident and was looking straight at it, if he saw Lutton with his arm around Matawalu's neck and off the ball he should have raised his flag, but he didn't, this is the type of officiating we have to put up with in the Pro12, it making our league look like a joke to the outsiders.

I'm an outsider; the joke is Matawalu here.

by Guest Thu 28 May 2015, 12:51 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
Munchkin wrote:Well, as much as I know Argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument, I'm using it anyway Very Happy Most seem to agree that Matawalu dived, or at the least if they would not call it a dive then fell unnaturally, and unnecessarily.
I agree that it can be difficult to determine when a dive is in fact a dive, and I agree that our interpretation may differ, and may differ honestly. It's up to the officials to make that call though, and although we know that they don't always get it right, I think it would be a big step forward that rugby union is seen to be at least acting to address this issue before it becomes a big issue.
The problem at the moment is that it isn't being addressed at all. I'm not suggesting that Matawalu should have been carded for diving, or that the penalty should have been reversed. I haven't yet found any precedent to do so, and so I didn't expect as much. I do think, however, that diving is an issue that needs addressed, and it's my hope that IRB takes action soon in order to help prevent any future incidents by punishing those guilty of diving.

That sir is something we can both agree on.

Hey! Finally something we agree on! Hug

by SecretFly Thu 28 May 2015, 12:54 pm

I hate unity.

I say Headbutt Divers and then let both players go off for something at least genuine.

Contentious I know.

Vicious I know

Censors diving for red pens I know

But diving's gotta be sorted either by 'Laws' or players taking things into their own hands when the ref doesn't see it for himself ....... Wink

Ha! ha! That'll end the damn hugs and kisses!

by Guest Thu 28 May 2015, 1:00 pm

SecretFly wrote:I hate unity.

I say Headbutt Divers and then let both players go off for something at least genuine.

Contentious I know.

Vicious I know

Censors diving for red pens I know

But diving's gotta be sorted either by 'Laws' or players taking things into their own hands when the ref doesn't see it for himself .......

Ha! ha! That'll end the damn hugs and kisses!

by The Great Aukster Thu 28 May 2015, 1:23 pm

doctor_grey wrote:Overall, how do you think we should officiate diving? What are appropriate sanctions? Anything else to get it out of the sport? Like many things in Rugby, I believe the first step is to establish uniform standards, then try, however difficult, to have the referees enforce consistently. I would also make this an equal part of post match reviews for sanction. What else?

DG - Expecting referees to deal with this in a game situation would be fraught with difficulty. An away player is unlikely to attempt simulation because he would have the crowd on his back baying for a card and the officials would struggle to deny them. Equally if a home player is the one playacting, then the crowd will be calling for the sanction against whomever caused the dive because it will undoubtedly seen very bad to their partisan eyes. In both cases it is the crowd who are conned the most, but heaping more pressure on officials in a game can't be a good thing.

The citing commissioner should be the one to raise the issue and have it dealt with outside the cauldron of a match.

I'd also consider having a points system for all incidences of foul play as adjudicated by the CC, so that players can end up with suspensions when they reach certain thresholds.

by ScarletSpiderman Thu 28 May 2015, 1:25 pm

SecretFly wrote:I say Headbutt Divers and then let both players go off for something at least genuine.

Ah so we now know your actually Dylan Hartley.

A headbutt for divers, a punch for shirt tugging and a good stamping for hands in the ruck. That could work.

by The Great Aukster Thu 28 May 2015, 1:36 pm

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
SecretFly wrote:I say Headbutt Divers and then let both players go off for something at least genuine.

Ah so we now know your actually Dylan Hartley.

A headbutt for divers, a punch for shirt tugging and a good stamping for hands in the ruck. That could work.

Sounds like the 74 Invincibles.

by Luckless Pedestrian Thu 28 May 2015, 4:14 pm

Munchkin wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
Munchkin wrote:Matawalu was looking to get Lutton carded by feigning injury.

Was he? Oh right, I'm glad that's an established fact now. When did he tell you?

Wind your horns in, numpty. I have watched the clips several times, and based on the evidence I viewed, I concluded that Matawalu feigned injury to fool officials into carding Lutton. You don't agree? Fine. You don't like it? Tough.

If you don't know something for a fact, don't present it as a fact. Make clear it's just your opinion.

by Guest Thu 28 May 2015, 4:17 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
Munchkin wrote:Matawalu was looking to get Lutton carded by feigning injury.

Was he? Oh right, I'm glad that's an established fact now. When did he tell you?

Wind your horns in, numpty. I have watched the clips several times, and based on the evidence I viewed, I concluded that Matawalu feigned injury to fool officials into carding Lutton. You don't agree? Fine. You don't like it? Tough.

If you don't know something for a fact, don't present it as a fact. Make clear it's just your opinion.

Why? Facts are scarce on sites like these. Should I preface most of my comments with: "In my opinion"? Not going to. I'm too lazy Very Happy

Anyway, wind your horns in Very Happy

by Sponsored content

Diving

Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving

Re: Diving