Dudley Phillips

First topic message reminder :

Dudley Phillips is employed by the IRFU as a "Participation Rugby Operations Officer". He used to be part of the Leinster Branch Rugby Referees: http://www.arlb.ie/?tag=dudley-philips

This weekend he is refereeing....... Leinster.

Now, I remember being told explicitly by Sin e that this kind of thing couldn't happen.

Dudley has never refereed Leinster before.

I guess Phill's problem is the balance sheet. He uses it so often in arguments that he believes even 'under the counter' payments are registered on them. He believes even bank robbers put their ill-gotten gains down on the tax returns

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

I provided the link for you, you ejit.

Missed that. In which thread?

Obviously the one in which the discussion was based!

carpet baboon wrote:Such a fan of private investment is phill yet has spent years crying the WRU won't give them money

That's the great irony of his argument

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

I provided the link for you, you ejit.

Missed that. In which thread?

Obviously the one in which the discussion was based!

I'm hoping it wasn't the one in which Toulon were fined for over the counter payments as calling them 'under the counter payments' when they were audited would make the claimant a special kind of stupid.

marty2086 wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Such a fan of private investment is phill yet has spent years crying the WRU won't give them money

That's the great irony of his argument

There's no irony, not to anybody half clued up on the topic. Why? Because they'd appreciate that the RSA includes payments for services provided. The clue is in the S of RSA.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Such a fan of private investment is phill yet has spent years crying the WRU won't give them money

That's the great irony of his argument

There's no irony, not to anybody half clued up on the topic. Why? Because they'd appreciate that the RSA includes payments for services provided. The clue is in the S of RSA.

S???????

Wow another clear and well argued point from the master debater of 606

IRFU bad for giving money to Provinces
WRU bad for not giving enough money to Regions
Phil confused!

Services provided? As in the WRU turning quite normal Regional players into International giant killers and then giving them back to the Regions to use, free of charge?

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Such a fan of private investment is phill yet has spent years crying the WRU won't give them money

That's the great irony of his argument

There's no irony, not to anybody half clued up on the topic. Why? Because they'd appreciate that the RSA includes payments for services provided. The clue is in the S of RSA.

S???????

Wow another clear and well argued point from the master debater of 606

IRFU bad for giving money to Provinces
WRU bad for not giving enough money to Regions
Phil confused!

Yes: S. S for Services.

The IRFU are not 'bad for giving money to Provinces'. I've never claimed they were.

So, you've now sunk to writing lies about my viewpoint to try to discredit me, just as you wrote lies on the other thread.

Oh dear. I should learn my lesson now as I remembered last time I called you out like this.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Such a fan of private investment is phill yet has spent years crying the WRU won't give them money

That's the great irony of his argument

There's no irony, not to anybody half clued up on the topic. Why? Because they'd appreciate that the RSA includes payments for services provided. The clue is in the S of RSA.

S???????

Wow another clear and well argued point from the master debater of 606

IRFU bad for giving money to Provinces
WRU bad for not giving enough money to Regions
Phil confused!

Yes: S. S for Services.

The IRFU are not 'bad for giving money to Provinces'. I've never claimed they were.

So, you've now sunk to writing lies about my viewpoint to try to discredit me, just as you wrote lies on the other thread.

Oh dear. I should learn my lesson now as I remembered last time I called you out like this.

Called me out, ain't you cute or arrogant as some call it

Sorry for mistaken your constant berating of the IRFU, their approach, influence etc as being a good thing I take it all back and declare you an honorary Irishman

Guinness?

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Such a fan of private investment is phill yet has spent years crying the WRU won't give them money

That's the great irony of his argument

There's no irony, not to anybody half clued up on the topic. Why? Because they'd appreciate that the RSA includes payments for services provided. The clue is in the S of RSA.

S???????

Wow another clear and well argued point from the master debater of 606

IRFU bad for giving money to Provinces
WRU bad for not giving enough money to Regions
Phil confused!

Yes: S. S for Services.

The IRFU are not 'bad for giving money to Provinces'. I've never claimed they were.

That's exactly your quibble.  The IRFU are not fit for purpose in a modern age of 'private' run Clubs. Just why that private run bit should be Holy Law is always beyond me - but so be it, Phill's natural law it is.  
Anyway, IRFU, not the right model, holding the correct model back - it should sell off its Provinces and get its lazy blazered a-ss out of the club rugby game.

1+1=2 = Bad for giving money to Provinces.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

I provided the link for you, you ejit.

Missed that. In which thread?

Obviously the one in which the discussion was based!

I'm hoping it wasn't the one in which Toulon were fined for over the counter payments as calling them 'under the counter payments' when they were audited would make the claimant a special kind of stupid.

Ah, so you've looked at the link and are getting your excuses in early. You do know that 'under the counter' doesn't actually mean under the counter? Hmmm....maybe you don't.

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

I provided the link for you, you ejit.

Missed that. In which thread?

Obviously the one in which the discussion was based!

I'm hoping it wasn't the one in which Toulon were fined for over the counter payments as calling them 'under the counter payments' when they were audited would make the claimant a special kind of stupid.

Ah, so you've looked at the link and are getting your excuses in early. You do know that 'under the counter' doesn't actually mean under the counter? Hmmm....maybe you don't.

Phil likes things to mean whatever he wants them to mean. Sometimes he takes things literally, other times he derives another meaning but either way it means Phi is right and completely honest and above reproach

marty2086 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

I provided the link for you, you ejit.

Missed that. In which thread?

Obviously the one in which the discussion was based!

I'm hoping it wasn't the one in which Toulon were fined for over the counter payments as calling them 'under the counter payments' when they were audited would make the claimant a special kind of stupid.

Ah, so you've looked at the link and are getting your excuses in early. You do know that 'under the counter' doesn't actually mean under the counter? Hmmm....maybe you don't.

Phil likes things to mean whatever he wants them to mean. Sometimes he takes things literally, other times he derives another meaning but either way it means Phi is right and completely honest and above reproach

St. Phil of Gwlad

Pot Hale wrote:Constant booing by a section of the crowd of every decision against the team.  Surprising.

Only the crowd chanting "Blooooos" mun. Very confusing I know, but there we are.

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Constant booing by a section of the crowd of every decision against the team.  Surprising.

Only the crowd chanting "Blooooos" mun. Very confusing I know, but there we are.

Lol. I didn't know that. Very good.

Kind of like the US crowds chanting Kuuuuuuuuuuch at the Ryder Cup last weekend sounding like booing.

No. 20 How not to be seen......
Wear an invisibility headband like Mr J Heaslip of Dudley Avenue, Dudley, nr Leinster.

Some questions IMO from the Leinster SH buying their first 3 points of the game to Heaslip's handstand in the ruck towards the end there.

Pot Hale wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Constant booing by a section of the crowd of every decision against the team.  Surprising.

Only the crowd chanting "Blooooos" mun. Very confusing I know, but there we are.

Lol. I didn't know that.  Very good.

Kind of like the US crowds chanting Kuuuuuuuuuuch at the Ryder Cup last weekend sounding like booing.

I might be fibbing though.

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Constant booing by a section of the crowd of every decision against the team.  Surprising.

Only the crowd chanting "Blooooos" mun. Very confusing I know, but there we are.

Lol. I didn't know that.  Very good.

Kind of like the US crowds chanting Kuuuuuuuuuuch at the Ryder Cup last weekend sounding like booing.

I might be fibbing though.

Oh. Right - you got me there. It was very plausible too.

Its like Bath fans chanting Brreeeeeeeeeeeeeeew

pic.twitter.com/NjCdOkl6xb

No try. Penalty.

Funny that.

If you had listened to the match, the TMO clearly says he propelled himself to get over the line

marty2086 wrote:If you had listened to the match, the TMO clearly says he propelled himself to get over the line

Like Ruddock did, with help from his mates.

Ouch.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:If you had listened to the match, the TMO clearly says he propelled himself to get over the line

Like Ruddock did, with help from his mates.

Ouch.

You really think that was a burn, don't you?

What's a burn?

Well, when someone says something ignorant and you say something smart that puts them in their place.

Notch wrote:Well, when someone says something ignorant and you say something smart that puts them in their place.

That constitutes 95% of martyn's output.

You being the ignorant one?

No 7&1/2 wrote:You being the ignorant one?

Is that your opinion?

PhilBB wrote:

Notch wrote:Well, when someone says something ignorant and you say something smart that puts them in their place.

That constitutes 95% of martyn's output.

What, him saying smart things that put you in your place?

Oh dear, Notch.

http://rugby.delfan.co.uk/rugby/2016-2017/Round06/MunsterDoubleMovement2_1.gif

No try for the above. Funny.

^ Immediate placing. Ha ha ^

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You being the ignorant one?

Is that your opinion?

Just the way you wrote it. No I think you know what you say very well, you just do it to try and wum though.

Burn Notch.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You being the ignorant one?

Is that your opinion?

Just the way you wrote it. No I think you know what you say very well, you just do it to try and wum though.

I'm swimming against an Irish tide on this board, a tide that doesn't want to face reality. Of course those folk will then get wound up by reality but that's their issue, not mine.

Even against people who aren't Irish it appears.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Even against people who aren't Irish it appears.

Really? I've only noticed fans of the IRFU branches who dislike the dose of reality.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:If you had listened to the match, the TMO clearly says he propelled himself to get over the line

Like Ruddock did, with help from his mates.

Ouch.

Errmmm Ruddock didnt propel himself he placed the ball

Why is it you resort to lies and distortion?

Whats the need to be so smart all about?

Not sure you pass a dose of reality Phil.

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:If you had listened to the match, the TMO clearly says he propelled himself to get over the line

Like Ruddock did, with help from his mates.

Ouch.

Errmmm Ruddock didnt propel himself he placed the ball

Why is it you resort to lies and distortion?

Whats the need to be so smart all about?

Thats why I thought that was such a funny and revealing thing to say. You'd only be wrong in what you said if opinions over the difference between the two weren't, to some extent, subjective. Obviously you two disagree over whether it was the right call. Thats alright- I guarantee there are world class referees who would disagree over it too because it was a very marginal decision. On another day, it gets penalised but a lot of refs would definitely see nothing wrong with it.

But no! Everything is black and white, wrong or right and there are no gray areas in life or the interpretation of the laws of rugby. There's only one correct interpretation of any fact. Phils interpretation. And anyone who disagrees is just a big stupid head!

PhilBB wrote:Oh dear, Notch.

http://rugby.delfan.co.uk/rugby/2016-2017/Round06/MunsterDoubleMovement2_1.gif

No try for the above. Funny.

Nah mate. Eddie Murphy is funny. Richard Pryor was funny. George Carlin (the comedian) was funny and don't tell him I said this, but George Carlin (606v2 Rugby Mod) can be pretty funny as well!

But thats not funny, thats just an example of two refs interpreting the same law in different ways. Nothing to get excited about.

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:If you had listened to the match, the TMO clearly says he propelled himself to get over the line

Like Ruddock did, with help from his mates.

Ouch.

Errmmm Ruddock didnt propel himself he placed the ball

Why is it you resort to lies and distortion?

Whats the need to be so smart all about?

How do you place the ball without propelling yourself forward?

There are no lies and distortion. The final question is beyond irony. If you weren't so eager to try to prove me wrong, and constantly failing to do so, things might be a little smoother here.

Notch wrote:

PhilBB wrote:Oh dear, Notch.

http://rugby.delfan.co.uk/rugby/2016-2017/Round06/MunsterDoubleMovement2_1.gif

No try for the above. Funny.

Nah mate. Eddie Murphy is funny. Richard Pryor was funny. George Carlin (the comedian) was funny and don't tell him I said this, but George Carlin (606v2 Rugby Mod) can be pretty funny as well!

But thats not funny, thats just an example of two refs interpreting the same law in different ways. Nothing to get excited about.

Nah, mate. It's very funny to see Leinster get the benefit of both decisions. Very, very funny.

Notch wrote:

Thats why I thought that was such a funny and revealing thing to say. You'd only be wrong in what you said if opinions over the difference between the two weren't, to some extent, subjective. Obviously you two disagree over whether it was the right call. Thats alright- I guarantee there are world class referees who would disagree over it too because it was a very marginal decision. On another day, it gets penalised but a lot of refs would definitely see nothing wrong with it.

But no! Everything is black and white, wrong or right and there are no gray areas in life or the interpretation of the laws of rugby. There's only one correct interpretation of any fact. Phils interpretation. And anyone who disagrees is just a big stupid head!

So, it's subjective. It's marginal. Isn't that, therefore, why we have a TMO?

I think that this pair of Ulstermen who follow me around might better wear that final sentence than do I.

Dudley isn't thinking about it anymore, guys. Neither is any of the players or coaches on either of the teams.

Move on. Life is too short.

I'm waiting for the indepth analysis of why it was the refs fault ospreys spanked the blues

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:If you had listened to the match, the TMO clearly says he propelled himself to get over the line

Like Ruddock did, with help from his mates.

Ouch.

Errmmm Ruddock didnt propel himself he placed the ball

Why is it you resort to lies and distortion?

Whats the need to be so smart all about?

How do you place the ball without propelling yourself forward?

There are no lies and distortion. The final question is beyond irony. If you weren't so eager to try to prove me wrong, and constantly failing to do so, things might be a little smoother here.

You place the ball with your hands,you propel yourself forward with your legs.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:If you had listened to the match, the TMO clearly says he propelled himself to get over the line

Like Ruddock did, with help from his mates.

Ouch.

Errmmm Ruddock didnt propel himself he placed the ball

Why is it you resort to lies and distortion?

Whats the need to be so smart all about?

How do you place the ball without propelling yourself forward?

There are no lies and distortion. The final question is beyond irony. If you weren't so eager to try to prove me wrong, and constantly failing to do so, things might be a little smoother here.

You place the ball with your hands,you propel yourself forward with your legs.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:If you had listened to the match, the TMO clearly says he propelled himself to get over the line

Like Ruddock did, with help from his mates.

Ouch.

Errmmm Ruddock didnt propel himself he placed the ball

Why is it you resort to lies and distortion?

Whats the need to be so smart all about?

How do you place the ball without propelling yourself forward?

There are no lies and distortion. The final question is beyond irony. If you weren't so eager to try to prove me wrong, and constantly failing to do so, things might be a little smoother here.

Look at your question?

Now go watch both incidents and your question will be answered

I don't think its your week, this plus Pot Hale showing your ignorance on the tv revenue yet you still persist with the myth you are right

He can't admit to getting the share of the Regions broadcasting fees completely wrong. It's one of the pillars of his conspiracy theory.