You forgot to put an apostrophe in you're, jesus christ man!!!
Andy Carroll
- Thread starter Woland
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
You forgot to put an apostrophe in you're, jesus christ man!!!
I didnt. And no im not, I just like my hair and beard this way.
If I was I'd take Suarez goal vs Wigan and turn it into more goals.
He's got Martin O'Neill written all over him. Not sure he'd go to Sunderland though.
Dantes, the idea that your purported scientific expertise somehow gives you the ability to look at a video, and speak about what is happening with any particular authority, is one of the least scientific things I've ever heard. It reminds me of that scene in Little Miss Sunshine where Frank is pushing the bus and he says "Have I mentioned that I am the preeminent Proust scholar in the US?"
A very generalised argument, that in a different context would sound like something a christian apologist would say to a physicist. I was actually relying on my attention to detail, and then pointing out those details for you. So if you now look at the video from 47 - 49 sec, and then offer a better explanation for it I'll change my mind.
It sounds nothing like what a christian apologist would say to a physicist. What I'm saying is if you want to go down the road of acting like your explanation is more scientific, then you'll have to make it more scientific, or in this case, scientific at all. You wouldn't use terms like "relatively high velocity" or "imagine" or describe a different analagous scenario with different variables as "the exact same scenario."
You seem to think I'm not humouring your argument, I'm perfectly willing to humour it in every single detail, because I'm that sad. Put simply, you offer no science at all, just a gesture toward it, and chiefly the question here isn't a question of mere physics in the sense that Carroll is some unthinking object, but one of biomechanics, which not only do you know the exact same amount of fuck all about as anyone on here, but even if you did, you don't really have the data or toolset necessary to do the analysis you are casually doing in your head like everyone else, using methods and information that is not scientifically rigorous. At that point, Ryan's experiential knowledge is actually worth far more than your impotent theorycraft.
In short you are just a guy with an opinion on a football forum. You're just the one being a dick by saying things like "And your brain has never processed information in as much detail as I'm asking you to" when you've made an incredibly weak argument.
You present a description of what happens and your whole argument rests on two laughable propositions. The first is a hilarious tautology:given when each foot hits the ground, it would be impossible for him not to fall. You are basically positing that movements which are part of a video of someone falling will in fact lead to someone falling. Yes, strangely enough, they always do. The question is how he informed those actions, and what his thinking was. The second is the arbitrary imposition of some cut off point after which he can't make decisions, so that he must fall over after the previous actions have occurred. Not only is this not an accurate description of what is going on, it avoids some of the fundamental questions about his decision making which are the crux of a discussion about whether someone did something intentionally to fall over.
The final aborted step you think automatically results in him falling could have been a longer or faster stride in order to recover his balance (likely he would have lost possession) Instead he seems to misjudges the keeper believing contact is imminent, breaks his stride more than his necessary, then does not use all his effort to recover and make a faster recovery with his left foot, instead electing to set in motion the process of falling over.
Is your contention then that he wasn't diving in the sense that he was trying to get a penalty, but instead when faced with a slight chance of recovering and scoring a wonder goal vs falling over pointlessly (and you discount here the chance of getting a penalty) he chose the latter?
If that's true it's even worse and seems even more pedantic than than this discussion already was. So it's not that he is a cheat trying to gain an advantage, it's that he would rather fall over than attempt to stay on his feet? If he was to get a penalty, it would be a convenient bonus, but really what he wants out of football, is nothing? Actually, that might be the most persuasive part of this stupid argument, given my opinion of Carroll, but alas, it was just a very poorly executed dive.
You seem to think I'm not humouring your argument, I'm perfectly willing to humour it in every single detail, because I'm that sad. Put simply, you offer no science at all, just a gesture toward it, and chiefly the question here isn't a question of mere physics in the sense that Carroll is some unthinking object, but one of biomechanics, which not only do you know the exact same amount of fuck all about as anyone on here, but even if you did, you don't really have the data or toolset necessary to do the analysis you are casually doing in your head like everyone else, using methods and information that is not scientifically rigorous. At that point, Ryan's experiential knowledge is actually worth far more than your impotent theorycraft.
In short you are just a guy with an opinion on a football forum. You're just the one being a dick by saying things like "And your brain has never processed information in as much detail as I'm asking you to" when you've made an incredibly weak argument.
You present a description of what happens and your whole argument rests on two laughable propositions. The first is a hilarious tautology:given when each foot hits the ground, it would be impossible for him not to fall. You are basically positing that movements which are part of a video of someone falling will in fact lead to someone falling. Yes, strangely enough, they always do. The question is how he informed those actions, and what his thinking was. The second is the arbitrary imposition of some cut off point after which he can't make decisions, so that he must fall over after the previous actions have occurred. Not only is this not an accurate description of what is going on, it avoids some of the fundamental questions about his decision making which are the crux of a discussion about whether someone did something intentionally to fall over.
The final aborted step you think automatically results in him falling could have been a longer or faster stride in order to recover his balance (likely he would have lost possession) Instead he seems to misjudges the keeper believing contact is imminent, breaks his stride more than his necessary, then does not use all his effort to recover and make a faster recovery with his left foot, instead electing to set in motion the process of falling over.
Is your contention then that he wasn't diving in the sense that he was trying to get a penalty, but instead when faced with a slight chance of recovering and scoring a wonder goal vs falling over pointlessly (and you discount here the chance of getting a penalty) he chose the latter?
If that's true it's even worse and seems even more pedantic than than this discussion already was. So it's not that he is a cheat trying to gain an advantage, it's that he would rather fall over than attempt to stay on his feet? If he was to get a penalty, it would be a convenient bonus, but really what he wants out of football, is nothing? Actually, that might be the most persuasive part of this stupid argument, given my opinion of Carroll, but alas, it was just a very poorly executed dive.
Get in line.
Is oncy is right, have I really lost so much respect here that people think I'm stupid and can lecture me about science?
At least he put up an argument instead of just saying "he didnt dive"
I dont know if he dived, fell, tripped, stumbled, took a convulsion. But I wish he had stayed on his feet because if he had it was an open goal.
If he scored that goal, stayed on the pitch, and not stormed off at the end, then it might have persuaded us to stick with him for another season. For the price of 3 meaningless points that could have cost us about 5 or 6 times that next year.
the first time I saw the incident I thought he fell and to be honest it still looks like he feel, in the grand scheme of things who the fuck cares? the bottom line is he fluffed his lines when clean through on goal.
He dived, buts whats most annoying is that he did it poorly.
Dembele is good but not the calibre of player we need. He's more in the Carroll bracket than the Suarez one.
I'd say a bit above carroll. His movement and technique is very good
Compared with Carroll a chair has good movement and technique!
Doesn't score goals really ... We need players who can score too ... So I guess we'll settle for Ronaldo and Messi.
- Status
