Saturday, February 11, 2012

Ummmmm...

I am going to assume the Prem will have no choice but to change the scoring on Fulham's winner today, giving Clint Dempsey another dazzling goal to count. His shot is clearly tipped onto the bar by the keeper, which makes it a shot on goal, which makes it a scorer's goal. If that's an own goal, my name is Lord Rupus Schmendrake IV.

For some reason, people just have to trip. Get real.


Channel Name_20120211224100 door footyh1



- Greg Seltzer

112 comments:

Alex Larsen said...

where's the dubious goals committee when ya need em.

SPA2TACU5 said...

Well it's an own goal.

It wouldn't have gone in if they gk hadn't touched it.

Greg Seltzer said...

How do you figure exactly? The keeper pushed it to the bar from being on goal. If he doesn't touch it, the ball simply flies into the net untouched.

dikranovich said...

i happen to be able to read lips and what sorenson said when that double dipper came at him was "holy hell", thats not bloody hell, but the higher more revered version. nice shot from deuce, ill take the three points for the assist, well, six, because he was my captain this week.

SPA2TACU5 said...

Dempsey's attempt is saved.
It doesn't cross the goal line and it's heading away from goal.
Then the gk touches it again,
changing it's direction towards goal.

Obviously this would not have been a goal without the keeper's touch.
This is an own goal.

Greg Seltzer said...

What in the world are you talking about, silly friend?

From the official rules of scoring:

"An offensive player whose shot is deflected into the goal by the goalkeeper or a defender receives credit for the goal, provided the momentum of the shot carried the ball into the goal."


Booyah.

Greg Seltzer said...

And remember this...

If you have a penalty kick, you get one shot. If you shoot and the keeper pushes it onto the post and it hits him to go in, that's a scorer's goal from one single shot - not an own goal.

One shot, one goal. Can't have a save and a conceded goal on the same shot.

dikranovich said...

clint definately gets credit for a shot on target. stoke kepper had two saves and fulham had three shots on target. the math is pretty easy here. sorenson gets a save and an own goal from one clint dempsey rocket.

Greg Seltzer said...

What save? It was a goal. There is no save there. The official scorer either didn't see that Sorenson tipped onto the bar or he's having a laugh.

Greg Seltzer said...

Wait... in the fantasy game, he gets an assist for that own goal?

That's the kookiest thing I've heard in at least 14 minutes*.

* = I just happened to hear something incredibly kooky around 14-18 minutes ago.

dikranovich said...

greg, sometimes, you really become a little bewildering.

dikranovich said...

i mean for real, you bring up the rules without even realizing you are explaining why this was an own goal. thats really pretty funny, actually.

Greg Seltzer said...

Exactly how has my grabbing the verbatim rule explained how it's an own goal.

The shot, which was ON GOAL before touched, went in of its own force. If the keeper does not touch that shot, it goes in. How in the hell one shot can somehow be saved and then also frickin' produce a goal is impossibly beyond all logic. It's overtly ludicrous.

I simply have no understanding of any kind how anyone can pretend the keeper knocked that into his own goal when it would not have otherwise gone in.

This is exceedingly simple. People just have to trip, for no reason whatsoever.

SPA2TACU5 said...

source of the rule youre quoting?

dikranovich said...

it does not matter where the rule came from, because the rule explains why its an own goal. greg, maybe the first problem you have, is that a shot that hits the post and does not go into the goal, is not considered a shot on target. a shot that hits the post directly, but not after a keepers touch.

Greg Seltzer said...

As I said above, copied straight verbatim from the official rules of scoring.

dikranovich... dude... the keeper tipped the shot onto the bar. It was a shot on goal. Unavoidable fact. But again, please feel free to explain how the rule says it's an own goal. You have yet to attempt to do so. You just keep claiming I've explained how it's an own goal by stating a rule which says nothing of the sort.

SPA2TACU5 said...

source url please...

SPA2TACU5 said...

so when dempsey shoots
gk knocks on the bar
ball comes back
and hits dembele's back
and goes in
it's dempsey's goal?

Greg Seltzer said...

There is no source URL for a book held in your hand. :)

Here is an identical online edition from the NCAA.

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/Stats_Manuals/Soccer/2009ez.pdf

Greg Seltzer said...

"so when dempsey shoots
gk knocks on the bar
ball comes back
and hits dembele's back
and goes in
it's dempsey's goal?"


Erm... that's not what happened, nor is it the same thing.

Was the shot on goal? Yes.

Did the shot enter the goal of its own force? Yes.

This is rather cut and dry, fellas.

SPA2TACU5 said...

NCAA?!

SPA2TACU5 said...

You lost this one Greg. This is an own goal. But You provided some interesting input for further discussion.

dikranovich said...

so you do agree then greg, that a shot that hits the post and does not go in, is not considered a shot on target? just so we are all clear?

Greg Seltzer said...

Let me try this again: Identical version printed online by the NCAA (a ka the first link I found that matches).

I have a game to watch. If you can take more time to Google up the original version, super. I have the original in my hand, the link I offered merely reprints it.

Greg Seltzer said...

"so you do agree then greg, that a shot that hits the post and does not go in, is not considered a shot on target? just so we are all clear?"


Yes. Obviously. Had the shot hit the post and then bounced in, it's clearly an own goal. Had the keeper been 15 meters from the line, touched it onto the bar and then turned to doink it in his own net. it's clearly an own goal.

As it occurred, it is clearly a scorer's goal. CLEARLY.

dikranovich said...

the offensive player recieves credit, provided the momentum of the shot carried the ball into the goal? so if the keeper tips the ball and it hits the post and dings over of the other post and then goes in, its a dempsey goal, but that did not happen here. it went keepers fingertips, post, keeper again, and then in. own goal, gorgeous shot, probabaly worth millions to our boy.

Greg Seltzer said...

"You lost this one Greg. This is an own goal. But You provided some interesting input for further discussion."


Huh? I lost this one how? I'm the one who has made and supported factual points. I have yet to even hear a bad explanation of how the rules say this is an own goal. There has not even been an attempt.

And I still expect this will be changed when reviewed.

Greg Seltzer said...

"so if the keeper tips the ball and it hits the post and dings over of the other post and then goes in, its a dempsey goal, but that did not happen here. it went keepers fingertips, post, keeper again, and then in. own goal, gorgeous shot"


Feel perfectly free to use the official rules to determine this. You have yet to do so. None of these points you're making are in the rule book. The rule book has been explicitly stated to you and there has been no rebuttal to this at all.

SPA2TACU5 said...

what rules?
it's pretty ridiculous you're quoting from a NCAA document


so when dempsey shoots
and shot would ve gone in
but gk knocks it on the bar
ball comes back
and hits dembele's back
and goes in
it's dempsey's goal?

dikranovich said...

dont be so mad greg, you live in a non english speaking country and your grasp on the english language has slipped, its ok. i would not complain if it is ruled a goal, it will add the points to my fantasy total.

it was not the momentum of the shot that carried the ball into the goal, because if it was, then it would never have hit the goalkeeper in the back, after hitting the post, unless sorenson was laying on his face inside the goal.

Greg Seltzer said...

"what rules?
it's pretty ridiculous you're quoting from a NCAA document"


Okay, now I am getting pissed off. For the third time, it is not an NCAA document. That is merely the quickest link I found that matches the rules.

If you are going to flat ignore me to pretend bullshit for the express purpose of ridiculing me with fiction, I won't answer anymore. Simple as. You decide.

Greg Seltzer said...

"it was not the momentum of the shot that carried the ball into the goal, because if it was, then it would never have hit the goalkeeper in the back, after hitting the post, unless sorenson was laying on his face inside the goal."


What are you babbling about? You cannot seriously believe this makes a lick of sense.

SPA2TACU5 said...

title of the book you're holding in your hand?

and please answer this:

so when dempsey shoots
and shot would ve gone in
but gk knocks it on the bar
ball comes back
and hits dembele's back
and goes in
it's dempsey's goal?

nb I didnt mean to upset you! my apologies.

dikranovich said...

thats a good point greg. you are not thinking sorenson was lying on the ground inside the goal, are you? you do agree sorenson was outside of the goal when the ball hit him and bounced in? you agree he was on the ground outside the goal, unaware of what was unfolding?

Greg Seltzer said...

O_O

dikranovich said...

i guess the final question would beg, greg. what would have made this a situation where it would have been an own goal? not straying to far from what actually happened.

Greg Seltzer said...

Here is the own goal rule clearly explained by an Irish FAI referee, demonstrating that the official rule of scoring is the same everywhere:

http://asktheref.com/Soccer%20Rules/Question/25837/

dikranovich said...

greg, it would be cool if you could answer the question, because it really matters. do you or dont you think sorenson was inside the goal or outside, when the ball hit him, the second time?

SPA2TACU5 said...

Again, that's not a official FIFA or in this case FA or EPL document.

It doesn't prove anything. But it certainly proves there is no rule for it.

It's actually a clear explanation of why this was an own goal.


But you refuse to answer my other question?

Greg Seltzer said...

"greg, it would be cool if you could answer the question, because it really matters. do you or dont you think sorenson was inside the goal or outside, when the ball hit him, the second time?"


No, dude, quite obviously I do not feel the keeper was face down in the goal when the shot hit him the second time. Good grief, man.





"Again, that's not a official FIFA or in this case FA or EPL document."


I didn't say it was. And Irish refs have the same rules as UK refs. What else do you want?


"But it certainly proves there is no rule for it."


It does absolutely nothing of the sort in any way whatsoever.


"It's actually a clear explanation of why this was an own goal."


Feel free to explain precisely how. This should be good.


"But you refuse to answer my other question?"


What other question now? You two are throwing the kitchen sink of wild questions at me, it's hard to keep up.

What in the hell is going on today??? I also have another person telling me insistently that college basketball is meaningless until the NCAA tourney (WHAT???) and I'm just trying to watch Standard v Anderlecht.

AGH!!!!!!!!

Greg Seltzer said...

The Dubious Goals committee reviewed 25 goals from October to December this season.

http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/dubious-goals-panel-ruling.html


I am going to expect this one will be reviewed, as well.

dikranovich said...

greg, you still have not answered the question to my satisfaction. let me make it a little easier, was sorenson inside or outside the goal when the ball hit him the second time?

id rather watch sacha against liege also, but i gotta go for wolves west brom, but it is a fun game.

dikranovich said...

its funny, but in the west brom game the announcer just used the term goalscorers goal to explain odemwingies second goal. it was a backheel from olsen that the nigerian slotted home.

i think it is possible to have "a goalscorers goal" and an own goal on the same play. call me crazy.

BTM said...

"provided the momentum of the shot carried the ball into the goal"

I'm sorry to say it, because I'd love to see Clint credited for the goal, but if this is the guideline we're using it's on own goal. The momentum of the shot has been reversed twice by the time it enters the goal.

SPA2TACU5 said...

so when dempsey shoots
and shot would ve gone in
but gk knocks it on the bar
ball comes back
and hits dembele's back
and goes in
it's dempsey's goal?

Greg Seltzer said...

"The momentum of the shot has been reversed twice by the time it enters the goal."


Reversed, but still powered solely by the force of the shot. Sorenson's touch slowed the shot, as did the deflection off the bar. The force of the ball's movement was in no way provided by either. That's science.

There are only two questions to ask here:

- Was the shot on goal?

- Was the ball directed into the goal by the keeper's action on it?

First answer: Yes. Second answer: No. He knew nothing of it, rat-tat-tat in a flash. He merely delayed it going in by a fraction of a second.

Had Sorenson's touch pushed it off the bar and away, it would be a save. Had it hit the bar and then him, it's an own goal. Had it been going off target and his touch put it on the course to go in, it's an own goal.

None of these happened. One shot, one goal, no save.

Jay Eychaner said...

"dont be so mad greg, you live in a non english speaking country and your grasp on the english language has slipped, its ok."

Did you really just say that? Ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem.

Greg Seltzer said...

"so when dempsey shoots
and shot would ve gone in
but gk knocks it on the bar
ball comes back
and hits dembele's back
and goes in
it's dempsey's goal? "


Surely, you are fully aware that an unknowing deflection of a shot going into goal does not automatically reward goal credit to the deflected upon, as it does in the NHL. Right?

Therefore, I would need to see this hypothetical, irrelevant goal to decide. it would be a separate case on its own the way you describe it.

Greg Seltzer said...

"Did you really just say that? Ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem."


The funny part is that Amsterdammers speak better English than many people in both England and the United States.

Barring a few extremely old Dutch and Turkish people, EVERYONE in Amsterdam speaks English. Out in the city, you would have great difficulty finding a person that didn't speak very good English.

Greg Seltzer said...

Which, by the way, is the main reason my Dutch is still not as great as I wish it was... all my Dutch friends always want to speak English. Those from elsewhere in Europe likely speak English better than they do Dutch.

Jay Eychaner said...

The funny part or the insulting part? You're a native English speaker, and a journalist writing on a daily or near daily basis for an American web publication. Someone just wants to stir up the hornets.

SPA2TACU5 said...

"I didn't say it was. And Irish refs have the same rules as UK refs. What else do you want?"

Please quote the rule and its source.
You can't. Because it doesn't exist.
this case has nothing to do with referees and their decisions or their rules.


so when dempsey shoots
and shot would ve gone in
but gk knocks it on the bar
ball comes back
and hits dembele's back
and goes in
it's dempsey's goal?

imagine this to happen exactly as it happened in the dempsey shot we're discussing
but add dembele standing next to sorenson
and instead of the ball hitting sorensons back
it goes in off of dembeles back

now I ask you: is that dempseys goal,
or dembeles own goal?

SPA2TACU5 said...

minus own

SPA2TACU5 said...

of course the follow up question will be,
if we replace dembele by an opponent
will it be an own goal?

Greg Seltzer said...

Then it's Dembele's goal, innit.

Greg Seltzer said...

YES! Please! Let's now go on to discuss a hundred more hypothetical scenarios that are explicitly not what happened in the case in question!

(sigh)

SPA2TACU5 said...

So now we replace Dembele by an opponent.
Would that be an own goal or not?

dikranovich said...

the hypothetical is not relevant. greg wants to be disagreeable, thats ok, its not the first time. so we will see what the fa says about the goal.

if it stands an own goal, will greg admit he was wrong? it is doubtful. i had to look up the definition of momentum to confirm. basically, the momentum of the shot carried the ball onto the crossbar, and if it had gone in directly from the crossbar, then the momentum would have continued, but as it stands, the shot took a bounce off the crossbar and down, off of sorenson, and in.

it was not the momentum of the shot, but rather of the deflection of the ball off the crossbar and down off the keeper. here is a philisophical question, would momentum taking you in one direction, be the same momentum that take you in another direction?

Greg Seltzer said...

If the goal is not changed, I will continue to quite correctly insist forever that it was Deuce's rightful goal beyond any possible doubt. Yeah. Of course.

As for the definition of momentum, I think you may need to study up. Momentum has nothing to do with direction changes.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/momentum

Greg Seltzer said...

In other words...

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_DWD9uJsgZOw/TR3yvzuvguI/AAAAAAAAAL8/IOGgf7x9ocU/that-word-inigo-montoya-word-think-means-princess-bride-mand-demotivational-poster-1260739585%5B6%5D.jpg


:D

SPA2TACU5 said...

Greg, please answer the question.

So now we replace Dembele by an opponent.
Would that be an own goal or not?

dikranovich said...

"alfred einstein, you are about as fresh as a foghat concert." momentum is a product of mass and velocity. greg, what you must now ask yourself, is what is the definition of velocity? devincavi!!!

SPA2TACU5 said...

dikranovich, why are you looking up the definition of momentum?

Greg Seltzer said...

O_O

I have things to do, fellas. Trying to make out a new NSC post before Gent starts.

And SPA2TACU5, there's something you should know about me as a person. I don't take orders. I don't respond to that. I don't reward that. I don't legitimize that as a way to get me to do something. That's just how I am, I'm stubbornly how I am and I make no apology for it.

SPA2TACU5 said...

its a request, could you please answer the question?

BTM said...

"Momentum has nothing to do with direction changes."

Oh, dear. Momentum (like the velocity referenced in your linked defintion) is a vector quantity. Ie, it has a direction and a magnitude. By definition, the momentum of an object changes whenever its direction of motion changes.

The momentum of the ball changed drastically both when it hit the crossbar, and when it bounced of Sorenson's back. It's completely reasonable to argue that it was not the momentum of the original shot that carried it into the goal.

A common sense definition would clearly give the goal to Dempsey. The only reason Sorenson was splayed helplessly on the ground was because he had to make the initial save. However it we strictly apply the guidlines you posted, Greg, its an own goal.

Greg Seltzer said...

This is starting to kinda freak me out. Did you read the definition of momentum? It is not what you are claiming it to be. You are misunderstanding the word. I'm sorry, I don't know what else to say. I'm not going to argue over dictionary definitions, there's a game on. If you think I'm wrong or being silly, so be it. I've still yet to have one rule explanation offered to suggest this can be an own goal. It's all just trying to poke holes in my argument that it's a goal instead of producing an complimentary opposing argument for exactly why this is an own goal by the rules.

Greg Seltzer said...

And if ANYBODY is wondering, Mix is on the Gent bench for this clash of rivals.

SPA2TACU5 said...

momentum Is nnot relevant since its an NCAA rule.

why are you ignoring my question greg?

dikranovich said...

greg, your argument that it is a goal is no argument at all, because as it stands, its an own goal. there is no need to poke holes in your "argument".

i do want to get the last word in though.

SPA2TACU5 said...

NCAA rules:

"While similar in general appearance, NCAA rules diverge significantly from FIFA Laws of the Game."

Alex Larsen said...

wow what is up with these guys

Jay Eychaner said...

Balls to that. I'll take the last word. This is petulance, and it's bullshit. The author of the goddamn blog has a goddamn opinion (heaven forbid) and there's a goon squad in the comments who have nothing better to do than try to berate him into rescinding those opinions. Fuck that.

Micah said...

Wow, you guys are ridiculous. If the shot from dempsey is on target and the keeper deflects onto the post and the ball ricochets off the keeper and into the net its a Dempsey goal simple as that. And there is absolutely no need to be a complete douche and make it out like greg cant even speak english. Get a life.

BTM said...

"Did you read the definition of momentum? It is not what you are claiming it to be."

I'm not sure who this is directed at, but yes, I did read the definition. It says momentum is the product of mass of velocity. This is precisely what I'm claiming it to be. Velocity is speed in a given direction. When direction changes, momentum changes. End of. If you're having trouble with that, these sites may help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity

Please believe that I'm not trying to be snide or looking for a argument here. But when someone claims that direction changes have nothing to do with momentum, and accuses others of not understanding the word, well, it's a little much to take.

"I'm not going to argue over dictionary definitions, "

How about at least explaining how the defintion supports your argument then? Just posting it and claiming it ends the discussion doesn't seem very helpful.

"I've still yet to have one rule explanation offered to suggest this can be an own goal"

An explanation has been offered using the same rule that you posted. The momentum of the shot didn't carry the ball into the net. The ball would have rolled away after hitting the crossbar if its momentum were not changed again by the keeper.

You may not accept that argument, but it is clearly a "rule explanation".

BTM said...

@Jay Eychaner and Micah?

Is it really necessary to hurl insults (douche, goon squad) around? Some of us are trying to have a reasonable adult discussion here. We can disagree without being rude.

Greg Seltzer said...

"When direction changes, momentum changes. End of."


Sorry, this is just grossly incorrect. The caroms are precisely evidence of a continued momentum. For you to suggest that there are "momentum changes" because it caroms to a new direction is to suggest that Sorenson's touch and the bar carom and the second inadvertent keeper touch applied force of movement to the shot, when beyond any possible doubt, they each decreased the ball's velocity.

Miriam-Webster: "1. a property of a moving body that the body has by virtue of its mass and motion and that is equal to the product of the body's mass and velocity; broadly : a property of a moving body that determines the length of time required to bring it to rest when under the action of a constant force"

I, my friend, am not having any troubles, but thank you anyway.


"Please believe that I'm not trying to be snide or looking for a argument here. But when someone claims that direction changes have nothing to do with momentum, and accuses others of not understanding the word, well, it's a little much to take."


I do believe you and hope you believe me when I remind that my point in saying it had nothing to do was regarding the application of force or creation of some mysterious new momentum. Change of direction does not automatically mean new momentum. Bat hitting baseball? Yes. This? No.





"How about at least explaining how the defintion supports your argument then? Just posting it and claiming it ends the discussion doesn't seem very helpful."


Forgive me, but I honey assumed that would cover the issue by itself. I did not realize this could continue as a debate.


"An explanation has been offered using the same rule that you posted. The momentum of the shot didn't carry the ball into the net."


OF COURSE, the shot's force was what carried it on its path to the net. How is this even debatable? Where did the force of movement come from then?



"The ball would have rolled away after hitting the crossbar if its momentum were not changed again by the keeper."


Yes, and if that was the entirety of what happened, it would be an own goal!!!

However, you have conveniently skipped right over the part where the keeper shoved it ever so slightly from going into his own goal.

That is not a rule explanation. That's claiming an obvious fact is not so. If you can scientifically explain where the force of movement came from other than his foot in that continuous movement from his foot all the way to net, then just go on and dazzle me. I welcome all theories.

The shot was on goal. The keeper was always at its mercy. He could have gotten lucky, he did not.

Greg Seltzer said...

I have no idea what the Dubious Goals committee will do with this. But my mind is set. I really am not sure why this is even in question, to be honest. It seems rather clear-cut to me.

Greg Seltzer said...

@ BTM: In all fairness, I don't think they were referring to you.

Jay Eychaner said...

Frankly, I see nothing adult about this conversation. The constant repetition of the same irrelevant question is, in my book, the very definition of unreasonable.

Greg is clearly a much more patient man than I am, and he's also clearly completely mind boggled by this line of questioning. Again, I might add. How is this debate even worth having?

Greg Seltzer said...

How about this... let's see if the Dubious Goals bunch have anything to say. If it needs to be, somehow, we can revisit this not-so-fascinating debate at that time.

Agreed? Super. Back to fun times now.

Kribs said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Greg Seltzer said...

"If you dispute the third touch, obviously you will call this a dempsey goal. There is no debate about the rules here, no debate about momentum, Greg simply disputes that the ball, moving away from goal having struck the bar, hits Sorensen's back."


I have done no such thing. I don't even understand how you think I've said that.

Lampard in the End Zone said...

I like this:
"Shots that are on target (i.e. goal bound) and touch a defender or rebound from the goal frame and bounce off a defender or goalkeeper are not considered own goals."

So Dempsey's shot touched a defender (goalkeeper) bounced off the goalkeeper and went into the net. That is a goal under Fifa's rulebook.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mencompwc/51/97/89/fs-301_06a_fwc-own-goal.pdf

Greg Seltzer said...

Thank you very much for locating a link that displays the rule on a FIFA URL.

And that's the end of that discussion. Shabam.

dikranovich said...

lampard, dont be crude. your explanation of what happened is not even close to what actually happened. greg, you lost this debate five different ways, so your new nickname is cincinnati chilli. where is the beef?

dikranovich said...

wikipedia does a good job of clearing up the definition of own goals in association football(soccer)

you guys on the wrong side should not be so coy. everyone that comes to this site wants to see the comments section full of new comments, its part of the thrill of checking into the site.

everone has to also love that this debate is hinging on what the actual definition of momentum is. but in truth, anyone that has watched this replay and says the momentum of the shot carried the ball over the line, they are not being genuine, or they are just being stupid.

Lampard in the End Zone said...

"Shots that are on target (i.e. goal bound) and touch a defender or rebound from the goal frame and bounce off a defender or goalkeeper are not considered own goals."

1. Shots that are on target (i.e. goal bound) - Dempsey's shot was heading towards the goal.

2. ....and touch a defender or rebound from the goal frame - Dempsey's shot was tipped onto the bar.

3. ....and bounce off a defender or goalkeeper are not considered own goals - Dempsey's shot, after being deflected from the bar, hit off the GK and into the goal.

dikranovich said...

lampard, dude, you are providing a rule that is an either or situation, which does not discribe the dempsey shot, because the dempsey shot involved both situations. oh well, i think we are getting close.

the african cup of nations final was a very nice game.

SPA2TACU5 said...

momentum = ncaa = irrelevant

the other guideline = fifa but

is not a league rule but merely a world cup guideline

and as dikranovich stated

it does not clarify whether the dempsey situation was an own goal or not

Greg Seltzer said...

ARE YOU TWO FUCKING KIDDING?

Greg Seltzer said...

Look... I must consider everyone who comes here. This is not the "Greg has silly ad nauseum arguments over extraordinarily simple and clear concepts with 3 people" blog.

You've had far too much "debate" leeway already. I won't have anyone intentionally ruining everyone else's NSC experience with this stuff. No dice. Wrap it up, gents.

dikranovich said...

greg, who are you trying to kid son, you own 40 of the 92 comments on this thread. you lost the debate and you are trying to play it off like you won. f that.

SPA2TACU5 said...

Aww c'mon Greg, don't be like that, my silly buddy.

Greg Seltzer said...

I could not care less about who won what. If you wish to think all that, be my guest. But stop aggravating my readers with it. You're going out of your way to be adversarial.

So here's what it come down to... do you want me to reply to you and discuss soccer matters or not? If you do, show me basic respect.

This is MY house. I have guests over. You are certainly welcome to be one of them, so long as you aren't trying to make trouble. We get along and behave with respect around here. There are plenty of places to sling mud. This ain't one.

Greg Seltzer said...

"Aww c'mon Greg, don't be like that, my silly buddy."


Don't be like what. This is aggravating my readers and it's not cool. That's precisely what I did not want to happen.

dikranovich said...

where is judge judy when you need her?

Greg Seltzer said...

I'm quite sure one could also find that via Google. Let's move on.

SPA2TACU5 said...

FYI I'm one of your readers and in this debate you have shown me zero respect from your second post on.

So how about you start treating your readers the same way as you like to be treated?

Greg Seltzer said...

"What in the world are you talking about, silly friend?

From the official rules of scoring:

"An offensive player whose shot is deflected into the goal by the goalkeeper or a defender receives credit for the goal, provided the momentum of the shot carried the ball into the goal."


Booyah."


You felt disrespected by this? Quite obviously, I was speaking to you in a tone of jest with the added assumption that this constituted the obvious quandary resolution.

And here we are, 90 posts later, with other readers complaining and me being called stupid, among other things.

And the ENTIRE TIME, I can't help but wonder why in the hell we're debating this at all, let alone how it turned into this nonsense.

You want respect? Give and ye shall receive. Let's move on.

Greg Seltzer said...

There's a reason there's no politics at NSC, a reason we don't sexualize the women's players, a reason a lot of things. It's because we want this place to be pleasant for all at all times, without battling sides and contention. Not a drag, like everything else.

So let's not be contentious, then it stays pleasant. You should know by now I don't hold silly little grudges, least of all because somebody thinks I'm wrong.

If I backed out every time somebody thought I was wrong, you would not be reading this right now. It wouldn't be here.

It is. Everybody's alive. Let's move on.

drew_brown said...

Ya gotta wonder if this guy Spartacus is the one from Mel Brooks History of the World smoking the funny stuff in order to think anyone other than Sorenson touched the ball that Dempsey shot. Somehow he repeated the line "Hits Dembele back" 1000x.

I think your readers will judge just fine who was being illogical in this case.

SPA2TACU5 said...

@ Greg, do you like to be spoken to in such a tone? Do you like to be selectively ignored? I don't think so.

So again if we want to have a normal conversation, we should all mind how we approach each other.

@ drew brown,

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis

I'll refrain from retorting.

dikranovich said...

just a little more info. dempsey gets the game winning assist in this game against stoke and he does not even get one bonus point. shawcross got a goal in a losing effort, yet he gets three bonus points. if there is anything somebody doesnt get, i dont get this.

Greg Seltzer said...

@ SPA2TACU5:

"@ Greg, do you like to be spoken to in such a tone? Do you like to be selectively ignored? I don't think so."


1 - As I said already, there was nothing rude or aggressive about my tone. And frankly, I think this reasoning is "playing the ref" after the fact.

2 - I have been selectively ignored by you this entire thread. Meanwhile, your version of being selectively ignored is when I refuse to answer your 17th irrelevant question.

3 - As I said already, I am not here to jump because you say how high. This is MY house. I come here in my free time. I am under no obligation to cater to any whims, answer any questions or repeat myself 20 times in one thread. And I'm certainly not going to do what you want when I'm being barked at with adversarial nonsense for three days.

In conclusion, you're making as big a meal out of this as you were with arguing over the goal. Get some damn perspective, would ya.



@ dikranovih: Oh, I see. NOW, you don't get it. NOW.

(sigh)

SPA2TACU5 said...

When someone disagrees with you, you reply in a demeaning fashion.
When you're wrong, you won't admit it.
When you lose a debate, you run away and shut the discussion down.

And you're not even man enough to apologize.
Enjoy YOUR house where you get to belittle your readers in your free time.

Greg Seltzer said...

Okay, now you're just talking complete fiction, up and down the list. I do not appreciate this.

The only person demeaning anyone at this time is you. I have no clue what the hell is so damn important about this issue to even make anyone behave this way.

Suddenly, you've appointed yourself decider of all things and what they mean, regardless of anything presented, snapping your fingers at me for instant service. Nobody here is enjoying this. As friendly advice, I suggest you reconsider your excitement and ease up.

Greg Seltzer said...

Good grief already.

dikranovich said...

cc, not to much unlike a high school soccer coach, you might be doing more harm than good.

Greg Seltzer said...

First of all, I have no idea what you mean by this. Secondly, if you think anything I've done in this thread or at NSC actually constitutes "doing harm" I have to ask myself why you're still here.

Now, I'm doing harm. Alright then. Marvelous. I'm glad we got that settled.

Will Parchman said...

Ahem.

A man arrives at the gates of heaven, where St Peter greets him and says, "Before I can let you enter I must ask you what you have done in your life that was particularly good."

The man racks his brains for a few minutes and then admits to St Peter that he hasn't done anything particularly good in his life.

"Well," says St Peter, "have you done anything particularly brave in your life?"

"Yes, I have," replies the man proudly.

St Peter asks the man to give an account of his bravery.

So the man explains, "I was refereeing this important match between Liverpool and Everton at Anfield. The score was nil-nil and there was only one more minute of play to go in the second half when I awarded a penalty against Liverpool at the Cop end."

"Yes," responded St Peter, "I agree that was a real act of bravery. Can you perhaps tell me when this took place?"

"Certainly," the man replied, "about three minutes ago."

Right guys????

dikranovich said...

william, that was a very nice allegory, but where were you 100 posts ago. that is, when you were not working on the brilliant stuff you have been putting out lately?