NPPL..OC....live...and scores

[Magued]

again

" I saw a Joy player shoot AFTER hes armband was removed"

Is that a mistake? As this is proven without any doubt that it was a lie how would you guys label this statement?
A reff doing a mistake is one thing a reff telling a lie is another thing all together! And that was the call that according to Dan gave Dyansty the game.
Therefore we label the game as a fix.

Magued

 

[Chicago]

I think it's entirely possible that Dan believed that a joy player had shot after his armband was pulled. All it takes is for Dan to have thought the band was pulled when it wasn't pulled. And if he makes a call based on that, it's not a lie, it's just an error.

 

[Robbo]

Eh, I don't know that I'd say they were favoring the home team. I think they were favoring the team that made the loudest noise, pretended that the call was they were clean, took the flag, and hung it. Standard pro paintball tactics and the refs fell for it. The refs lost control of the game and Dynasty took contol of the game, and unfortunately, that's part of winning at the pro level.

Chicago, read my post again mate, I am not saying you said they favoured the home team, I fully agree with you they made the easy decision and it is me who is implying they chose Dynasty to be the easy route for obvious reasons.

 

[Revolt]

is pgi going to cover this in next months edition with pics ? :>

 

[Chicago]

Chicago, read my post again mate, I am not saying you said they favoured the home team, I fully agree with you they made the easy decision and it is me who is implying they chose Dynasty to be the easy route for obvious reasons.

Gotcha.

 

[H]

is pgi going to cover this in next months edition with pics ? :>

Does the pope shi!t in the woods?

 

[Chicago]

Does the pope shi!t in the woods?

Uh, no?

 

[Magued]

it's not a lie, it's just an error.

You and I have a slightly different take on that one then. My standpoint is that if someone told me he saw something 2 minutes ago, and it turned out to be the wrong I label it as a lie. And I wouldnt reccomend anybody to try that in court. Yes I saw it, ehh sorry it was a error..

 

[Robbo]

Uh, no?

Chicago, Broz (Harry the 'H' as I call him) was being typically English in his humour - actually when I read his post it made me laugh out loud (yeh, yeh I got a simple sense of humour).
He knows what he's doing there Chi

 

[Matski]

You and I have a slightly different take on that one then. My standpoint is that if someone told me he saw something 2 minutes ago, and it turned out to be the wrong I label it as a lie. And I wouldnt reccomend anybody to try that in court. Yes I saw it, ehh sorry it was a error..

Agreed.

As a judge/official you need to make calls based on fact i.e. what you see. He could not have seen it by default as we know that it didn't happen, therefore it was an assumption. If you sell an assumption to people as fact then you are knowingly giving people information that could be wrong and you are conscious of this. Whatever way it is cut - he guessed wrong/in error, and the lie came after the guess in order to legitimise it....."I saw" beats "I think I saw" if you don't really care much for the facts.

I'd put it down to pressure not agenda, but that dosn't excuse it.