Re: Ian Hollyer from Carleton Blatantly Cheated in the Finals
mgd.mitch
out the first few points of the wisc/col semi's for a very
similar situation (with a different outcome).
--
Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
paul
anything. People are going to cheat. Maybe a ref is not
needed, but someone neutral needs to be able to mete out
punishment for this.
Besides, we don't know if he was cheating. The other thing
that this all hinges on, is if he really thought he was in
(hit his head on the ground and was disoriented, saw jesus
at the moment of layout, etc), he was NOT CHEATING.
At least if the ref screwed up, you could say it was an
honest mistake, and not the ref (guy who called it up)
cheating on behalf of his team, yes?
I think that the real question is not where is the integrity
of the game going, but, is this the kind of game you want to
accept?
Manzell Blakeley
rolling over to my backside, I felt the disc slipping out of
my hand. To avoid dropping it and losing the goal (a penalty
I had paid previously) I simply tossed the disc up in the
air as if I was spiking it. Problem solved!
The real question, if the primary observer called it down,
how did that observer get overruled without a discussion?
luk...@gmail.com
Any chance we can see the footage too before July? I know
the play you are talking about but kind of hard for everyone
to go back and rematch it when CBS and usau don't make it
readily available until two months after the event. Just
saying, if you want people's comments on a pretty serious
accusation then at least link to the clip you speak of. I
know Ian personally and I can't say I caught the incident
you are speaking of, was too busy celebrating a sick layout,
but I know he has a very high level of integrity. I've also
played four years at college nationals and I know how easy
it is to get caught up in the competition and lose sight of
sportsmanship for a split second. Either way, manzell makes
the best point here, how did that observer get overruled?
The observers are there to act like referees in situations
like this because it is really easy for players to get
caught up in the moment. We can definitely self officiate
but when that system fails we have observers to fall back
on, and they failed in this situation too. So please don't
place blame completely on the shoulders of a Carleton player
in the middle of a highly intense and emotional final, speak
to all the factors involved in how that decision was made.
Also, please make the materials available to the ultimate
community so we can accurately judge the play for ourselves
instead of you just getting up on your high horse and
telling us Ian Hollyer cheated.
rebelnugget
something similar happen to me at a Regionals game where I
came down with a disc, knocked my head on the ground, and
when I reoriented myself saw that the disc had bounced above
me. I grabbed it and thought it had bounced off my body so
it was up the whole time.
The other team disagreed, but the observer ruled it up.
Afterward, a teammate who was on the sideline recording it
said the disc obviously hit the ground and thought that I
knew it the whole time but was just acting, which wasn't the
case.
It's really hard to know where the disc is in that
situation. In fact, I told the observer I didn't know
whether it was up or down. Does that mean I cheated? I don't
think so. It's possible that Ian knew the disc was down and
purposefully cheated, but assuming nothing about his
character, it seems equally plausible he didn't.
Baer
did. I know that Kyle is a big proponent of self-offciation,
so he must have taken no joy in pointing this out. This
scenario is an example of why self-officiation is not what
much of the Ultimate community makes it out to be, but it is
also an example of the imperfections of third-party
officiation as well.
As with the Georgia-Middlebury game last year that Toad
often brings up, this scenario is an opportunity for
champions of spirit to decry cheating in any form. Even
though (as others have pointed out), the possibility exists
that the player may not have realized what actually happened
in the heat of the moment, a common response already, and
similar to responses I recall reading in the
Georgia/Middlebury threads, is a defense of the player,
which can be summed up nicely by lukepow a couple posts
above: "So please don't place blame completely on the
shoulders of a player in the middle of a highly intense and
emotional final." He also says: "It is really easy for
players to get caught up in the moment."
In my opinion, those responses are not incorrect. This is
sport. Things like this happen, especially at the highest
levels of competition. However, this is the exact reason why
self-officiation cannot be relied upon as a tenet of a
serious sport.
The same example shows obvious flaws in refereeing as well,
which we see in every sport, and those of us who advocate
for referees in Ultimate have no misconception that refs
would make everything perfect. But the excuses used by
Ultimate fans to justify what happened in this instance, as
well as UGA/Middlebury last year, demonstrate even further
the fatal flaws of self-officiation of Ultimate is to ever
excel as a mainstream sport.
Kyle, sorry for getting on my soapbox in your thread.
luk...@gmail.com
thought the disc was up. It was on the ground between his
legs."
Ever heard the phrase assume positive intent? It doesn't
seem like it but it might be a good one for you to latch
onto Kyle. Based on the way Ian landed I am sure there is
the possibility he thought the disc was up but he had been
out of bounds when he dragged his feet, explaining why he
ran back to play defense. And like i said before, please
try to assume positive intent instead of just attacking a
player. If you were more civil in your post it might read
something like "it appears to me that Ian Hollyer lost the
disc upon impact with the ground, which would be a turnover
if called down. No one on the field, including Ian, called
the disc down, and after the observers met they ruled it a
goal". You could continue on to make your point but it is a
lot more civil then exclaiming Ian cheated right away
because I assumed positive intent instead of assuming the
worst right away.
And again Kyle, please stop saying that he cheated without
letting everyone else form their own opinion based on the
footage that is available. If you had posted this after
cbssports aired their coverage I would have fewer problems
with your posts but you are the only one that has access to
this footage right now. Also, if you are going to call out
cheating wherever you see it then actually do it. Players
bump on the mark all the time, a foul by the rules set in
place, but a lot of the time it doesn't get called because
we self officiate, is the intentional foul still cheating
even if not called? Is the thrower cheating by not calling a
blatant foul? These questions might not have true answers
but they at least speak to an example of cheating that
happens ALL THE TIME with no comment. While it is important
to call out people that blatantly cheat please don't make an
example of one player based on a situation only you seem to
have noticed, especially when you make the grand claim that
you call out cheating whenever you see it.
Turtle
> > Again, our safety mechanism here (3rd party observers)
> > failed us as well, so we were more likely to get the right
> > call by relying on the player's integrity/perspective with
> > observers backing it up than just relying on the officials.
> > Believe me, I'm still a proponent of observers for up/down
> > calls.
>
> > Kyle
> > --
> > Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
>
> Based on the way that you describe the play--
>
> "It is clear that when he gets up from
> the bid, his head is down and he's running back to play
> defense. He looks at the observer who is calling him in"
>
> --it sounds like he wouldn't have called it a goal if there had been
> no observers. Thinking back to the UGA/Middlebury game, it also looked
> like the UGA player was getting up to play D when he saw the observer
> calling him in. In both cases it seems as if we would have gotten the
> correct result if the game had been played without observers.
>
> I'm not really sure what to conclude from this...In the NFL, in a
> fully ref'd game, we expect receivers to try to deceive the ref's. If
> I'm playing in some USTA tennis league, I expect that my opponent
> isn't going to try to deceive me my calling my shots out when they're
> not.
>
> I guess what I'm saying is that whole notion of an observer is
> confusing. Do we trust players to self-officate or not? In what sense
> is a game in which every call is appealed to observers "self-
> officiated?" In that case, what advantage does an observer present
> over a ref?
Can't an Observer Send the disc back if he didn't have a good view of
the play. Why didn't this happen in this situation. If this happened
without Observers then the disc would have most likely gone back to
the thrower. And who knows what would of happened after that
basically leaving in up to Karma to decide if it was a goal.
jop
Kyle's post is one of the first things that appears. There
are legitimate issues to discuss here, but this feels like
online bullying to me, esp. the invitation to "pile on."
I hesitated to post because I don't know if it elevates the
link on google.
paul
and bellyflopping on a disc, I am not paying attention to
see if the disc touches a single blade of grass. Looking
down would mean I would eat a header. I just guess based on
the feel of my catch, if I got a forearm under it, etc.
"I'm not sure" is probably what happened, then he saw a ref
and thought, "yeah, I can get away with a fast one" or
"maybe he saw it was up". Either way, it is a fact of life
we live with that HE might not even be sure. Either way,
it's still an issue of trust, but it's just as much an issue
of "can he even tell if he caught the damn thing".
So what will it be? we can view these inconsistencies two
ways:
A) He's not cheating: "I'm not sure" calls tend to swing
toward "Whatever works for me at the moment". People are
not that capable of seeing what happened, but rule in their
own favor when really not sure.
OR
B) He is cheating: "I knew what happened, I ruled in my own
favor anyway, and I'm a dirty cheater". People ARE capable
of seeing what happened, but they aren't trustable.
Either way, there is no incentive to suck less at being
accurate with your calls. The only incentive to suck less
is so you don't get publicly shamed (as on RSD). With a
third party, you at least can boot the ref's ass for making
bad calls and enforce standards. So I ask again, is that
where we really want expectations to be? Is it OK that we
put calls in the hands of people who aren't sure what
happened, or people cheat?
Eric
everyone to know that I will call you out for cheating if I
see it and I'll do it on TV as well so everyone can know
that you cheated."
Then you should refuse any offers to commentate again. This
is a shameful display of borderline libel, and you should
never be allowed near a USAU microphone again.
Watching this play on the live feed, I did not even notice
that the disc came out, and assumed that he was running back
to play D because he thought he had landed out, and then
celebrated when he was called in (which he was). I agree
with luke that you should not offer these accusations
without providing any evidence, this is such a serious
accusation to give, and honestly I think shows a grave lack
of character on your part. He could have held on through the
first ground contact (thus making it a catch if he is in),
and then released it thinking he was OB. Given that there
was a person whose sole job was to view the play, there next
to him calling him in, and it a catch, it is pretty serious
to assume that he knew for certain that it wasn't and chose
to allow the wrong call. More likely he assumed someone saw
it better than him and thus it was the right call.
enjoitheworld416
remember correctly that the view was from directly behind
the carleton player so we couldn't see anything underneath
him. Plus I for one was very focused on seeing if his feet
were in so this may have distracted from checking to see if
he had possession.
chigger
> Ok, I'll try to address the open points here.
>
> 1. I want to be clear - this isn't a "did it touch a blade
> of grass?" type question. The disc was clearly on the
> ground between his legs. His hands were no where near it.
> He knew it, the Wisconsin defender new it, and the near
> observer knew it. How and why the far observer overruled
> the call I do not know. And I don't think it is pertinent
> to the discussion any further than to say that 3rd party
> officiation does not always work.
>
> 2. The reason I brought this up on RSD was because the way
> that this game was shot I was not able to bring it up during
> the TV broadcast in any good way. We missed the first 2 and
> 1/2 points as we were resetting up our booth because of the
> wind. If this had been called normally we would have been
> able to have this discussion on the webcast and every body
> would have been talking about it. As it was, the play was
> basically the last thing that we recorded and because the
> rest of the game had already been recorded it would have
> been terrible for the program to make a big deal of it then
> and then basically have that be a highlight throughout the
> rest of the game. Because it was so blatant I felt that it
> needed to be discussed here.
>
> 3. There are three big differences from the Charlie Herrig
> catch from last year. A. This situation hadn't already been
> discussed ad nauseum. B. Charlie never celebrates the
> catch. C. The defender never calls the disc down.
>
> 4. I DO call out cheating when I see it. On my blog I
> talked about Stanford making bogus foul calls. In the 2009
> Club finals I talked about Rob Barret intentionally bumping
> on the mark and I did it the year before for Jam. Last year
> at College Nationals I called out Luke Powers for bumping on
> the mark and Brodie for stepping in to his mark. Sometimes
> it's harder to distinguish and I'm pretty hesitant to call
> something out unless it is pretty blatant.
>
> 5. AJ's point is interesting and definitely a worthwhile
> topic. I think it's important to have the safeguard there
> to reduce obvious missed calls by players but that the
> system works best if players are expected to make the right
> calls. But it's obvious that some see that "safeguard" as
> an opportunity to reduce their own responsibility for bad
> calls in their favor.
>
> 6. On the topic of calling someone out for taking advantage
> of the rules/poor perspective of the observer. Really?
> This is our National Title game. Should we not talk about
> it? Thierrry Henry and Maradona have both done something
> similar in significant soccer games. The difference is that
> Soccer doesn't expect them to make the calls. Even with
> less expected of them, they were ridiculed for their lack of
> integrity.
>
> 7. On the topic of "inviting a pile on." Yes, I made a
> mistake with the subtitle. I inappropriately added levity
> to a very serious topic. I figured this was similar enough
> to the Herrig play from last year that Toad would be all
> over this so I made a joke. I am sorry about that.
>
> 8. @Wuzzandfuzz. Yes, it's fine. The system had to break
> down in two places for this to be called a goal. One, by
> the player making the call and two, by the observer. In
> your ideal solution you are reducing these safeguards to
> just one and if that happens we'll have considerably more
> blown calls. And as we have less accurate calls, we'll also
> have more players trying to get away with calls because they
> do not trust the system or their opponents.
>
> 9. To Luke: I'm really sorry that there isn't video to go
> along with what I know is a very serious accusation. If
> there were and when there is you would/will understand where
> I'm coming from here. Maybe you are right that I should
> have waited until after everybody saw it and had an
> opportunity to judge for yourself. I perhaps let my
> emotions get the best of me after getting frustrated after
> watching that replay several times last night.
>
> 10. On that note, I'm a bit surprised that no one else is
> commenting on the play in question to affirm or deny what
> I've said happened. There were thousands of people watching
> this play both in person and on-line (I assume this was
> showing on the webcast at the time but am not positive and
> am not sure if they showed replays of it). I figured there
> would be a chorus of "I know!" or at least "yeah, I thought
> I saw that happen." Instead, now we're all discussing a
> play where apparently I was the only one that saw it
> (including the players and observers who were involved).
> Surely, someone must have seen it. It was an incredible bid
> and effort and one of the few points in the game.
>
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
I was the far observer on that play and I didn't overule the other
observer. He called him in on the sideline and I called him in on the
backline. The Wisconsin players were saying he dropped it and Andrew
and I came together. I said I didn't see him drop it. In the wind
Andrew could have heard that as there was no drop. It was really hard
to hear each other unless you were shouting in each other's ear.
So the blown call is all on me, not Andrew.
At every level of officiating mistakes happen and calls get missed.
What happens next is what is exactly happening now lots of publicity.
Observers are going to miss some calls just like NFL Refs, MLB
Umpires, and NBA Refs. One missed call does not take away all the
great work done by all the observers out there working games no matter
who they are working for.
Byron
stjohns
"I'm a bit surprised that no one else is commenting on the
play in question to affirm or deny what I've said
happened."
Okay, I'll comment. I was watching (impartially, if not
slightly rooting for Wisco), and I deny what you said
happened. I saw it the same way that ricoman above did - I
thought Hollyer was running back to play D because he
assumed "no way I was in" and then celebrated when it was
called a catch. And, I might add, looking a little confused
about the whole situation. Not like someone who was trying
to game the system. It was replayed several times and I
never thought to myself "he's cheating."
I also, sadly, agree with ricoman about this:
"This is a shameful display of borderline libel, and you
should never be allowed near a USAU microphone again."
You've worked hard to establish yourself in recent years and
have benefitted the sport tremendously (mostly through your
work in juniors, not your commentating), but this is a
bridge too far, Kyle. Walk it back, please.
paul
time in other sports. Difference is, in our sport, it is
CRITICAL to fuck with players' heads about the importance of
sportsmanship.
In order for the system to work, we all have to feel guilty
for shitty calls, as well as self righteous for good ones.
That's the problem with the honor system. The only
incentive (other than personal integrity/feeling bad) for
people not to cheat is, well, public shaming for those who
unapologetically cheat.
So we write about this poor guy who may have not even been
cheating like he's the asshole of the world, just because of
a call in a game, because it's important for the system to
work. Think about it: "Dirty player" in our game has a
quite unique meaning; it isn't the guy stomping skates to
injure (like hockey) or pulling facemasks (like football).
It's the guy who wasn't sure if the disc was up and called
it in his own favor questionably in a tough moment.
So once again, is this the standard we want? Sounding smug
about sportsmanship, and crucifying people who break the
honor code that aren't even making dangerous plays?
luk...@gmail.com
your post and titling this group what you did. If you did
you would have taken it down by now because it is borderline
libel. Making an accusation like "this person cheated" and
putting it all over the Internet (5th response on google for
the name Ian hollyer) could have serious negative impacts on
this young man's life going forward. If you still want to
have the discussion with people please take down this group,
considering how personal the attack is, and rename it.
Also, please define what you are actually trying to
accomplish with these posts. I might be stupid but I seem
to be missing your larger goals with these posts. Is it to
have a discussion about integrity in ultimate? Do you just
not like Carleton? Cause this has seemed to piss you off way
way more than anything else.
And speaking to point ten, plenty of people have commented
on that, but their overhwelmingnresponse has been "I don't
know". The play was confusing, happened quickly, and after
it happened I was looking for confirmation of the goal.
Maybe that isn't what I should have been concerned with but
at the time I was also highly emotionally involved in the
game.
There are a lot of reasons you shouldn't have put up the
post in the first place. Now that it is there, if you can
muster the humility, please admit that you are wrong and do
the right thing and take down or rename this group. And
please don't respond saying you are not wrong because I mean
wrong in the way you went about accomplishing your goals
(whatever those are), not that you are wrong about Ian
cheating. But again there is no proof that he cheated and
you cant make the video available so none of us can really
comment on that aspect anyway.
paul
being in a dude's hands that may have a very bad idea of
what is going on despite best proximity to the play is good.
I think that alone is worth putting it in the hands of one
or two that are paying attention.
I'm not really advocating much here, I'm not really sure
what the best way to go is. However, there needs to be a
better INCENTIVE to make accurate calls than what we have
now. A way for people to say, yes, it ALWAYS benefits me to
be as accurate as I can. A third party giving out
punishment for painfully bad calls is one, but Ultimate is
full of really smart people. I'm just surprised that no one
has gotten off the high horse that ultimate
self-officiant-players have to be the most sportsmanlike
players, and thought of a good way for it to be in the
players' best interest all the time to be accurate.
I also don't think you are crazy for pointing out the play,
but I still hate the idea. I dislike this dynamic very
much, but pointing out bad calls in public forums is the
only way to show teams they should improve. Think of the
dirtiest team you play, and how people tend to regard them.
It's the only price anyone ever pays
Sorry about the thread hijack, I'm just stuck at work for
the next hour or two waiting for my damn experiment to
finish. : (
Julian Bonds
I thought (and have seen games called this way) that when the offense
and the defense disagree on the call, and the observers did not have a
definitive view of the play, then the disc is returned to the
thrower.
Why was this not the case on this play? Did the observers say that
the disc was held through the whole play?
brendan
moderators, it will (I think) be taken down.
--
http://kenyonultimate.wordpress.com/
ulticritic
> > , I don't think you can
> > say "this is a problem that refs would have solved."
but it IS a problem IR would have solved.......and IR is just another
layer of refereeing.......its refs reffing the refs.
my question to YOU, slobbery mouth sounding kyle w, is WHY WERENT YOU
AS EQUALLY CRITICAL OF JOJAH LAST YEAR.......could it be that those
were your boys and you are from jojah?
also, why dont you take it for what it is.......THIS AINT NO CHURCH,
THIS IS SPORTS
-----------------------------------------------
The
> > far side observer blew the call. But here was a situation
> > where self-officiating could have bested 3rd party
> > officiating, and Hollyer failed to demonstrate it.
BFD, all that means is that he's human. get the fuck over it
--------------------------------------------------
>
> > I don't expect a response from Hollyer, but I do want
> > everyone to know that I will call you out for cheating if I
> > see it and I'll do it on TV as well so everyone can know
> > that you cheated.
were you the kid that told on kids when they talked when the teacher
left the room back in grade school too.........you got a serious jesus
comlex dont ya there mr pious.
ulticritic
what people REALLY NEED TO COME TO TERMS WITH is that this whole sotg
CRAP just dosent instill the kind of honor and integrity that SOME
people thinks it does.......it just makes it look unorganized, bush
league and bullshit
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
ulticritic
>
> And speaking to point ten, plenty of people have commented
> on that, but their overhwelmingnresponse has been "I don't
> know". The play was confusing, happened quickly, and after
> it happened I was looking for confirmation of the goal.
> Maybe that isn't what I should have been concerned with but
> at the time I was also highly emotionally involved in the
> game.
OH BULLSHIT......the dude cheated and he's a cheater. WHO AMOUNGST US
HASENT CHEATED......at somthing somewhare in our lives. i cheated
about 5 to 10 times in my ultimate carreer and i have no problem
whatsoever owning it. everybody cheats, ITS HUMAN NATURE. BUT QUIT
PLAYING DUMB ABOUT IT. FESS UP AND MOVE ON. more importantly, the
sport should get over its self rightious attitude and accept that
people DO CHEAT and try and minimize the cheating BY NOT ENABLEING
IT. i mean, if some guy wants to piss off hios teammates and give the
disc up, like in that basketball/sportsmanship commercial LET
HIM.......but dont expect everyone to live up to that churchy ideal.
i mean, the cathalic religion can even keep their priests from raping
underage boys so how the fuck are you people gonna keep people from
cheating in a sport. get real, get refs and get IR.
luk...@gmail.com
reasons Kyle's post was removed that would be greatly
appreciated.
Also, if you could check your posts for spelling and grammar
before posting it would make them a lot easier to read (I
counted at least 6 misspellings in the above post).
George Freeman
ignoring your cries.
Reggie Fanelli
> If you have access to the footage, you might want to check
> out the first few points of the wisc/col semi's for a very
> similar situation (with a different outcome).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---is this the ORIGINAL post from this thread?
where is the ORIGINAL post?
what is this thread about?
Reggie Fanelli
~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
---where is a post from Kyle about this guy from CUT cheating?
what happened?
ulticritic
> Ulticritic, if you could take this post down foe the same
> reasons Kyle's post was removed that would be greatly
> appreciated.
yea right......like THATS really gonna happen
--------------------------------------------
>
> Also, if you could check your posts for spelling and grammar
> before posting it would make them a lot easier to read
again, yea right......like THATS really gonna happen.
--------------------------------------------
(I
> counted at least 6 misspellings in the above post).
that few?!?!?
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
Reggie Fanelli
> did. I know that Kyle is a big proponent of self-offciation,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--kyle who posted what?
kyle w?
why is there such an uproar about this act of cheating....but ONLY
toad expresses an 'uproar' about the UGA/Middlebury cheating last
year?
what gives?
did no one else get upset about uga dropping that disc last year and
claiming a goal.....because toad did?
ulticritic
> Toad, Charlie Herrig would drop you and then walk away
> ignoring your cries.
youll have to explain the relevance of who he is
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
Reggie Fanelli
---WHOA!!!!
up down controversy????????
hold on now.....
if the game officials were allowed to signal "imcomplete pass" would
there be THIS controversy????????
UOA officials make the UP/DOWN call....and signal appropriately.
if upsa observers were permitted to make that call...would there be a
controversy?
Reggie Fanelli
> your post and titling this group what you did. If you did
> you would have taken it down by now because it is borderline
> libel.
---oh god damn.
if the guy is a cheater....let him live with it!
Reggie Fanelli
> reasons Kyle's post was removed that would be greatly
> appreciated.
---why?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
> Also, if you could check your posts for spelling and grammar
> before posting it would make them a lot easier to read (I
> counted at least 6 misspellings in the above post).
---could you read it?
maybe it takes some abstract thought to be able to get past a
misspelllllled word.
ulticritic
here it is mike
> I don't think it's worth it to sugar coat this one. I am
> embarrassed for our sport and not because of the god-awful
> wind.
> On the second point of the game, Simon Montague threw a deep
> forehand to Hollyer to the north (downwind) endzone.
> Hollyer laid out, catching the disc and toeing the corner.
> It would have been a great catch but the disc popped out as
> he hit the ground and clearly slid under his body and was
> loose on the ground between his legs when he came to a
> stop.
> He knew it was down but when he saw the near observer
> pointing "in" he started celebrating. The Wisconsin
> defender knew it was down and appealed to the observer. At
> one point the near observer even points down while walking
> to the play (he would have had a good look at it under his
> legs). The far observer came over and called it up.
> The CBS crew were in the process of rebuilding the booth
> under the scaffolding (which was about to blow away) so we
> weren't commentating or watching at the time it happened.
> It was very clear on replays though when we went back to
> rerecord the first three points last evening.
> The game did not hinge on Hollyer's decision not to make the
> right call but it was a terrible example of sportsmanship
> and what Ultimate strives to be. Since the Observers got
> involved and made the final ruling, I don't think you can
> say "this is a problem that refs would have solved." The
> far side observer blew the call. But here was a situation
> where self-officiating could have bested 3rd party
> officiating, and Hollyer failed to demonstrate it.
> I don't expect a response from Hollyer, but I do want
> everyone to know that I will call you out for cheating if I
> see it and I'll do it on TV as well so everyone can know
> that you cheated.
> Best,
> Kyle
and i still dont get why everyone made such a big deal about it or why
kyle pussed out and removed it
Reggie Fanelli
---over sensitive much??????
what's the problem?
these assholes are searching out his employers and trying to tarnish
his huge efforts for the sport because of THIS?
goddamn.....you people are a bunch of backward assed assholes.
what's wrong with you people?
THIS alone....THIS incident...is enough to PROVE TO ME....that I am
always right....and that you rsd fuckers are always JUST a bunch of
common BITCHES.
THIS incident alone is enough to PROVE that TOAD is always
right....and that you rsd fuckers are just a bunch of common bitches.
H. Bailey
anyway.
Reggie Fanelli
> Ulticritic, if you could take this post down foe the same
> reasons Kyle's post was removed that would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Also, if you could check your posts for spelling and grammar
> before posting it would make them a lot easier to read (I
> counted at least 6 misspellings in the above post).
----HEY...Luke Pow.....
you wrote abot TOAD needing to check his spelling and grammar before
posting.
please tell me.......what is "if you could take this post down FOE the
same reason Kyle's was removed" means.
what does FOE mean?
like...rival...opponent?????
i can't even finish reading your post.....because that one word
doesn't make perfect sense and i'm not able to use some abstract
thought to determine what OTHER word it might be.
FOE.
FOE the same reason.
Rival the same reason.
Opponent the same reason.
?????????????????
i mean...FOE SURE
Reggie Fanelli
> reasons
>
---HUH????
FOE?
luk...@gmail.com
same as always posting with misspellings. But please, do
take one example and blow it out of proportion, that is what
most people have come to expect of your posts anyway. At
least I was trying to accomplish a goal by responding to
Kyle's posts, get the name of the group changed as not to
slander a college sophomore who didn't necessarily deserve
to have his name tarnished. I mention this in contrast to
you and ulticritic constantly reposting this group because
that has no purpose other than to be obnoxious. But please,
if I misspell anything in the future please let me know
because I will work to correct that so that my posts are
easy to read and understand for everyone.
Reggie Fanelli
> same as always posting with misspellings.
---hey....don't bring it up AND misspell something in the exact same
breath.
keep your big brain to yourself and read.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But please, do
> take one example and blow it out of proportion, that is what
> most people have come to expect of your posts anyway.
---do they expect it?
because they sure seem to overreact all the time about them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At
> least I was trying to accomplish a goal by responding to
> Kyle's posts, get the name of the group changed as not to
> slander a college sophomore who didn't necessarily deserve
> to have his name tarnished.
---change the name of the group?
you want to change the name rec sport disc?
as for tarnishing his name...did rsd do that...?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I mention this in contrast to
> you and ulticritic constantly reposting this group because
> that has no purpose other than to be obnoxious.
--- i was SIMPLY asking questions about a thread i was
reading...because it was OBVIOUS that some of the posts were
missing.....
there was discussion about something....and the 'something' was
clear....the 'something' was missing...gone.
all i did was ask questions, because i've learned.....that asking
questions is a great way to find things out.
SORRY if it made the thread's title reappear...
i wasn't posting to make the kids name reappear...i was merely asking
about the incident that sooooo many others were writing about.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But please,
> if I misspell anything in the future please let me know
> because I will work to correct that so that my posts are
> easy to read and understand for everyone.
---after being made to look foolish FOE misspelling in a post talking
shit about SOMEONE ELSE misspelling...i'm sure you never will again.
FOE SHO!!!!