Originally Posted by
geysir
Bunkum.
I referred clearly and repeatedly to the incident.
What part of "what happened our there" did you not get?
Did you not reply directly to my analogy about "what happened out there" and claim it was ludicrous?
But you say you were only speaking in general? What were you smoking?
If somebody wrote, 'what happened out there was the best ever finish to a cup final', would you reply 'ludicrous, the 1958 final was much more exciting'
and then claim later that you were only speaking in general and didn't actually claim to have seen this year's cup final?
As I wrote before, it applies in general to most discussions about a game, but it appears that it applies to you especially, don't take issue with an interpretation of an incident, if you haven't seen it for yourself.
Were refs not taught that in ref school? go consult the assistants if you haven't seen the incident? Or was it the opposite, you were told you could bluff it out?